OSDL Position Paper on SCO and Linux 421
cshabazian writes "The OSDL has released a position paper raising serious questions about SCO Group's threatened litigation against end users of Linux. The position paper, which casts doubt on SCO's position, was authored by one of the world's leading legal experts on copyright law as applied to software, Professor Eben Moglen of Columbia University."
ODSL? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm really glad to see the Old Dominion Soccer League (ODSL) [odsl.org] taking a kick at this. Hopefully they'll have the balls hang tough with SCO and score one for Linux lovers everywhere!
You evil, evil, little man (Score:5, Funny)
This is probably because what those jocks did to you in high school, eh?
Forgive and forget, man.
Forgive and forget.
Re:ODSL? (Score:2)
Re:ODSL? (Score:2)
Re:ODSL? (Score:2)
I doubt it (Score:3)
Re:ODSL? (Score:2)
Just southeast of heaven to the surf and the hills.
She's the best of 13 sisters, and 37 more.
Sweet, sweet Virginia always keeps an open door.
--Eddie From Ohio [eddiefromohio.com]
So basically.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So basically.... (Score:3, Funny)
SCO is plainly lying (Score:4, Insightful)
So, I see at least Two Commandments broken here, Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness, and Thou Shall Not Steal.
Sadly, I doubt the courts will apply any punitive measures, even when SCO loses. I think if the top SCO execs, and Bois, were to be publically flogged on the Washington Mall, we might see a return to ethics in the boardroom.
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:5, Interesting)
Conspiracy theory! (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, is it maybe some pension fund or something like that with corrupt management "investing" in the SCO stock, helping their PHB pals at SCO?
Conspiracy!
(Well, that would make more sense than most other explanations...)
Re:Conspiracy theory! (Score:3, Interesting)
On a clear blue day, with all of the facts in your favor, and with no chance of losing the case, going to court means you have about a 20% chance of losing.
So, to turn that around, SCO probably has about a 20.01% chance of WINNING this case.
Of course, that won't happen, since the moment it gets close, IBM would sue them for infringing about 2000 patents that IBM holds in reserve just for su
Re:Conspiracy theory! (Score:4, Informative)
The price would go up if people were covering their shorts(ie. cashing them out). Generally you see a bounce(often called a dead cat bounce) right before a stock goes under as people buy the stock to cover their shorts. To short a stock you don't have to own it, and from what I understand the stock has been going up so people most likely aren't covering their shorts yet.
More than likely people are betting that someone(ie. MS, IBM, whoever) will come along and buy them.
Re:Conspiracy theory! (Score:5, Informative)
Short selling works as follows:
First the short-seller sells the stock in question, without actually having any in their portfolio. Typically in looking at your brokerage account the position would be listed as -X shares of the stock. The actual shares in question are "borrowed" from other accounts temporarily. This selling activity initially places downward pressure on the share price, which can become significant if short-selling becomes intense. If you look here [yahoo.com], for example, you can see that about 5.5% of the existing float for SCOX has been sold short. That's significantly higher than the figures for MSFT, IBM, and SUNW, which are all around 1%.
Once the stock in question has fallen, the short seller then buys back the shares at the lower price. Their profit, minus transaction fees, is the difference between the initial sell and the final purchase. Usually the short-seller has control over when they'd like to buy back the shares, but sometimes in rare circumstances they can have their positions called in, or more commonly, an unexpected upturn in the company's outlook causes a rise in the share price. In order to minimize their losses, the short sellers rush in to cover their positions, which puts additional upward pressure on the stock, which becomes a "short squeeze."
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:2, Funny)
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:2)
10 Commandments Ruling [cnn.com]
dochood
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:2)
The article makes solid points, though it could have used a second pass from the English teacher..
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:2)
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:5, Insightful)
> I think any geek worth his salt can see that they're lying about the merits of the suit
Unfortunately, it's not geeks that are going to rule on this, so SCO's loss isn't a foregone conclusion. IBM's best bet may just be to buy them out because from where I sit, IBM's purported right to put stuff into Unix without it becoming "derivative work" may not extend to things developed by other people (Dynix) and brought in after their IP has been bought.
What's a judge going to think? Wopner might agree with the geeks: SCO is obviously lying. But will the judge that gets the case in whatever district it goes to trial have the insight of a Penfield Jackson?
too soon to hold our breath...ank
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:2)
SCO would be the plaintiff, who is not at risk of having punitive measures applied.
Re:SCO is plainly lying (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it is not unlikely that IBM will file counterclaims that SCO will have to defend. I'd expect them to pull out every patent that they've contributed to Linux under terms that require GPL distribution and to bitch-slap SCO with them. Oddly enough, one of them is the RCU patent. I would not be surprised to see them to retailiate with business libel, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices claims.
They must be breaking some kind of law (Score:3, Interesting)
This whole thing is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This whole thing is ridiculous (Score:3, Funny)
It's about creating new products that are trade secrets owned by SCO. For example, JFS is a trade secret owned by SCO.
Yes, I known that SCO hasn't published anything like JFS, that's obviously why it's a secret.
Re:This whole thing is ridiculous (Score:2, Redundant)
No, it is not. [slashdot.org]
No, this has *nothing* to do with that (Score:4, Insightful)
The standard contract said that AT&T has rights on any changes you make to your Unix code, IBM got a special amendment to the contract stating that they owned any changes they made to AIX. but Sequent did not, and Sequent, not IBM developed the tech that SCO is bitching about (NUMA, RCU, ETC). IBM, SCO and Sequent were all working together on project Monterey, which was supposed to be an 'industry standard' Unix, but IBM lost interest in Monterey, purchased Sequent and left SCO out to dry (now, this was the 'old' SCO, not Canopy/Caldera SCO).
Anyway, SCO thinks that it owns the contracts because it owns the original Unix IP (or at least the copyrights anyway, none of the patents)
In fact, the person who wrote the RCU code for Dynix (or whatever Sequent's *nix was called) for Sequent is the sameperson who wrote the RCU code in Linux for IBM.
but, and here's the thing, Sequent developed it's tech independent of Unix. RCU and that stuff would work on any modern OS's kernel. They published their papers and filed their patents before they implemented it in their own version of Unix.
So the issues are:
Did the contract rights really transfer to SCO?
Does the "naked" contract Sequent signed mean all their tech is owned by SCO now? Does it mean that the "naked" contract mean that any technology that you develop, and later put into a Unix clone automatically become the property of SCO?
Does IBM's special contract apply to stuff they acquire from other Unix vendors?
The answers to these questions aren't totally obvious, although to me they should mostly go to IBM's favor here. On the other hand, the claim that SCO owns all of Unix is ridiculous. The proper thing to do is tell everyone what files are infringing and then have them rewritten by the community. SCO seems to claim now that anyone who touches any Licensed Unix code, or any code by anyone who has touched any Licensed Unix code has sold their soul to them, which is just idiotic.
Re:No, this has *nothing* to do with that (Score:3, Interesting)
Who modded this guy up? You, sir, are talking out of your ass. The person who developed the RCU code for Dynix is not the same who did the work on Linux. The RCU implementation you see on Linux was done by 3 engineers, none of them having anything to do with the original Sequent employee. I know, I was at Sequent at that time.
Brett Glass
Re:No, this has *nothing* to do with that (Score:2)
I hadn't heard this before. Are you sure it's true? It easily could be, but that brings up a point which you skipped. If IBM does own it's modifications to UNIX (but not Sequent's), how can SCO complain about contract violations relating to JFS?
RCU and some NUMA work came from Sequent, but JFS is pure IBM-developed code (AFAIK) dating back to the original release of AIX in 1991 or so. It was pioneering
You are getting close to the primary issue... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'd say that such an assertion is tenuous at best. Those technologies did not exist in System V when it was lisenced by IBM. They are not extensions or newer versions of anything in System V. SCO's argument would have to be t
Re:No, this has *nothing* to do with that (Score:3, Interesting)
Other posters seem to have raised some doubts about the accuracy of your facts, but assuming what you say is true, you're still mixing up patent and copyright.
Not having read the document myself, I can't say this with absolute certainty, but AT&T's license claus
Re:This whole thing is ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
If you independently discover a trade secret, you're fine. Depending on your state law, you might even be able to approach or use unfair methods. And if a secret is disclosed, no one can claim it as being a secret anymore, even if the disclosure had nothing to do with them.
This is why 'IP' is such an awful term. It groups together fields of law that are very diverse, and have no common basis or doctrines, basically. Better to deal with each field on its own.
Read the paper yesterday. (Score:5, Insightful)
End Users? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow! (Score:2, Funny)
Wow! He actually casts doubt on SCO's claims! That must have taken a legal genius! Certainly something none of the nerds on
That's because... (Score:2)
Re:Wow! (Score:2)
I think the only way to
Why Linux needed SCO (Score:4, Insightful)
If Linux wants to be a player in the business world, it's got to play by the rules, and that's what SCO case is about to clarify. If there is any verdict on the SCO case, it will allow the Linux OS to be treated more seriously than just a hobby operating system.
Now faced with the question "How does Linux deal with copyright issues and licensing?" one can always point to the SCO case (assuming that the trial gets resolved in IBM's favor) and quote the precedent, which is usually good enough in the US.
This last outbreak of FUD attack by SCO will actually stop all the FUD and conspiracy theories surrounding Linux in the business world.
Don't assume that a trial will take place (Score:2)
> "How does Linux deal with copyright issues and licensing?"
> one can always point to the SCO case
> (assuming that the trial gets resolved in IBM's favor)
> and quote the precedent, which is usually good enough in the US.
There may not be (and IMHO, probably won't be) a trial.
If SCO and IBM settle out of court, there is no precedent.
Even if the settlement says that SCO should pay IBM, it could be a secret settlement, and there still would be no precedent to slay
Linux Needs SCO Like a Hole in the Head (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me a troll, but something like SCO case was actually needed by the Linux community.
I don't believe you are a troll, so much as woefully (perhaps willfully?) ignorant of recent free software and open source history. I could speculate on an agenda you might push with such a reasonable sounding, but factually incorrect, comment, but as you are an Anonymous Coward it is pointless to do so. The moderators who modded this +5 on the other hand are fair game, and almost certainly Microsoft/Sun astroturfers in local garb.
While the game was "just for fun", no one really paid attention to any licensing issues.
Untrue. Linus released the original kernel he wrote under the GPL quite deliberately. Even then he was paying attention to licensing issues and their impact on his project (though he never dreamed of the magnitude of that impact).
RMS has always paid meticulous attention to licensing issues. Recall KDE/qt's GPL issues, that resulted in the creation of a competing project (gnome). Trolltech eventually addressed those issue, and KDE today is legal and solidly licensed under the GPL, but that entire process was a prime example of the community addressing licensing issues long before business issues were the driving force.
However, currently we're experiencing major expansion of Linux-based systems into business field, and business executives usually ask about IP rights and responsibilities.
Actually, that is rarely true. Business executives purchase a license (or not
This despite the fact the neither Microsoft, nor anyone else, offers any substantive indemnification to end users against 3rd party lawsuits (Redmond PR comments notwithstanding).
If Linux wants to be a player in the business world, it's got to play by the rules, and that's what SCO case is about to clarify.
Linux has been playing by the rules, meticulously and in a very open manner. The SCO case isn't going to 'clarify' this, as it is a contract dispute between IBM and SCO. Quite the contrary, the SCO FUD and misinformation, which contradicts itself from one day to the next, is doing anything but muddy the issue with as much misinformation as they can squeeze into a daily press release.
This last outbreak of FUD attack by SCO will actually stop all the FUD and conspiracy theories surrounding Linux in the business world.
Long term you may be correct. In the ensuing years however it will have the opposite effect, do to a gaping flaw in the US legal system that allows companies to spread disinformation and FUD without legal consiquence (one can "allege" anything, even with zero evidence). Contrast that with the laws of more reasonable countries, such as Germany and Australia, where doing this sort of thing can and does land one in hot water.
Worse, legal disputes that have dragged on for years usually rate one report ("SCO Lost, IBM vindicated") and are no longer news
The result is that this is a net-negative for Free Software and Linux, and is clearly going to be the tactic employed by Our Masters in their efforts to divide and conquer those of us uppity enough to recognize and exploit economic value in cooperation, rather than cutting one anoth
Re:Why Linux needed SCO (Score:2)
I'd say that Linux has been breaking business rules more than anything. What businessperson would have expected that such a product would come out of (largely) unpaid volunteers?
The Press (Score:2, Insightful)
Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:5, Interesting)
Quoted from the July 28th edition of Information Week magazine in an Article by Larry Greenmeier titled "Sco Group Threatens Users in Linux Fight" p.24 -- sorry, I couldn't find a link online.
Agree with it or not, at least one lawyer thinks users could be liable. -Derek
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:5, Insightful)
Courtrooms? What ever happend to the time held... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:2)
The GPL however should prevail given SCO's continued distribution of the kernel, so all in all, this whole argument is quickly becoming a moot point. T
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:5, Informative)
Linux enduser license agreements are an 'as is' contract... Linux users aren't protected from copyright or intellectual-property infringement claims...
First, there are no "Linux enduser license agreements" (except perhaps the one from Caldera), so whoever wrote this knows jack about shit.
Second, even if there were Linux EULAs, it would still be irrelevant, because he's saying "the EULA doesn't protect you from copyright or IP claims" - all the while ignoring the fact that people would be immune anyway, as they're not copying anything.
If the New York Times got sued for plagarism and lost, would that make it's readers liable? Of course not. This is really no different.
at least one lawyer thinks users could be liable
No, actually - at least one lawyer, who doesn't have a clue about the facts in the case, thinks that an EULA (which doesn't exist) wouldn't stop liability, when standard property-rights laws would.
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:2, Interesting)
Incorrect. The GPL is an end-user license agreement. Also, Mandrake, and RedHat both have a EULA section in the installation.
Second, even if there were Linux EULAs, it would still be irrelevant, because he's saying "the EULA doesn't protect you from copyright or IP claims" - all the while ignoring the fact that people would be immune anyway, as they're not copying a
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:2)
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:4, Informative)
More accurately, it is an agreement that anyone in possession of the software can choose to enter with the copyright holders of that software, the acceptance of which grants that person rights they would not otherwise have.
A person in possession of the software can choose not to accept the agreement, and thus ignore its terms completely. The GPL excplicitly recognizes this option:
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
If the user opts to ignore the GPL, copyright law prohibits modification or distribution of the software, but does not govern use.
Calling the GPL a EULA is misleading. EULA's are generally understood to be click-through agreements that limit the rights of the user beyond the exclusive rights already provided by copyright. Companies that distribute software with EULA's attempt to force users to accept the agreement before they can use the software.
Classifying distribution and reproduction under "use" is also misleading. "Use" is understood to mean "running the program." End-users are understood to be parties who use the software but do not distribute it; hence "end" as in "terminal to the distribution process."
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:3, Informative)
it does not cover use of GPL'ed software. The GPL is in fact a license for
the creation and distribution of derivative works, which not all end users
(see 17 USC 117) will bother doing. Very many in fact, couldn't care less
about whether _they_ can utilize the GPL if they desire to do so. Unless
you're going to modify and redistribute GPL'ed software, it's basically
irrelevant to you. The truth is, most GPL'ed software is sold outright or
giv
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you are incorrect. The GPL explicitly disavows being a USER agreement. It is a DISTRIBUTION agreement. There is a huge difference between using something and distributing it.
If they have software that infringes on the copyright and IP claims of another party, they will be liable for what is in their possession.
No, they won't. They received the software in good faith. I note how you conveniently dismissed my argument about the New York Times
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:2)
IANAL, but this just sounds like a lawyer talking out of their ass. You can tell by the term "intellectual property infringement claims" - that term is completely meaningless. I would suspect the context of that quote is that the license you purchased, say, RedHat under doesn't indeminfy you against "intellectual property infringement" claims from 3rd parties, in the general sense. Well, neither does Microsoft sometimes [slashdot.org] but you don't hear that from them do you?
Read Professor Moglen's paper - it is a carfu
Re:Users liable? Someone thinks so. (Score:2)
typo (Score:2, Informative)
ODSL = ??
OSDL = OpenSource Development Lab
(this sentence is here to bypass the lame lameness filter)
SCO doesn't know why they should sue IBM (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:SCO doesn't know why they should sue IBM (Score:2)
Yeah you know me
Whos down with OPIP?
All the ladies!
Sorry. My bad (Score:4, Funny)
No idea why he didn't just ftp it to himself. I guess the guy never was too hot when it comes to computers.
SCO the jilted bride (Score:3, Funny)
And now she wants to ruin everyone elses wedding, unless she gets a gift for her ruined wedding.
Re:SCO the jilted bride (Score:2)
my thoughts on his main three arguments (Score:5, Interesting)
this is the key argument: without evidence of infringement they clearly have no claim.
2. you can't charge a license fee to users
this has to be correct: if there has been a breach of SCO's copyright then SCO has a right to sue the Linux distributors. It has no right to charge or sue Linux users.
3. SCO distributed the allegedly-copyrighted work themselves, and have therefore licensed it under GPL
I'm not sure it's no simple. SCO will no doubt argue that, at the time, they didn't realise the source contained their copyrighted material. This raises the question of whether you can be legally bound by the GPL if you don't realise what you were licensing. This is a tricky question under English law; I've no idea what the US position is but doubt it is straightforward.
Re:my thoughts on his main three arguments (Score:5, Informative)
Even after they knew there was "infringing code", SCO continued to distribute it.
Merchants are held to a HIGHER standard (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL, but I have studied enough law to know that laws are much more strict when a Merchant (someone who is distributing a good as a business) gets involved. There are specific warranties a Merchant grants which CANNOT be waved. If Walmart sells you a microwave, do you think they
Nothing new, but good (Score:3, Insightful)
He's basically boiled the thing down to three points, familiar to any regular slashdot reader by now, but put in a nice simple, short, easy to digest form by a qualified lawyer. Great link to send any PHB that is worried by SCOs FUD.
Another attorney comments (Score:4, Informative)
Here's another lawyer (Australia), saying don't "drop your pants [idg.com.hk]" to SCO.
Finally, here's IBM planning a response to SCO's amended complaint [weblogs.com]. Once again SCO's web site seems to omit some important issues.
Re:Another attorney comments (Score:2)
It's a pretty weak rebuttal though, first the guy claims that the analogy of software to a book in the OSDL paper is flawed, since software must be copied (into memory) to be used. And after Moglen points out that this is explicity permitted, he concedes the point and falls back on:
"[..] that almost all software licenses stipulate that the licensor retains
A useful tool (Score:2)
However, this is a pretty useful tool for showing to the people who normally WOUDLN'T have our technical backgrounds. I plan to point some folks to it.
Bias? (Score:4, Interesting)
But I don't see anyone complaining that the OSDL certainly has a vested interested here and is hardly to be expected to provide an unbiased report.
Discuss.
Re:Bias? (Score:2, Interesting)
It is of course, biased toward Linux.
Gartner is an analyst firm. The two organizations serve entirely different functions.
Re:Bias? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bias? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do you see something in Moglen's paper that ignores SCO's side of the argument?
It's hard to be unbiased when the only available facts are so one-sided.
Some people like to ignore facts if it helps them look less "biased," because facts tend to lead the mind to certain conclusions. I mean, we wouldn't want actual critical thought at the expense of giving both parties equal benefit of the doubt, would we?
So far, I have yet to see one single, tangible, FACT from SCO that would support their claims in the least amount. And yet I see all sorts of "journalism" that lends credibility to SCO's claims for the sake of "unbiased" reporting.
What Is The Real News Here? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft spends quiet a bit of money studying "things" and one thing they admitted was that their FUD attempts have backfired at every twist and turn and the only thing that seems to get businesses to listen to was legal liablity.
Microsoft & SCO are simply trying to stop Linux anyway they can. SCO is simply a "middle man" between the two major forces here: Linux & Microsoft.
Text extracted from PDF, with permission (Score:2, Informative)
Eben Moglen
Users of free software around the world are being pressured to pay The SCO Group, formerly Caldera, on the basis that SCO has "intellectual property" claims against the Linux operating system kernel or other free software that require users to buy a "license" from SCO. Allegations ap-parently serious have been made in an essentially unserious way: by press release, unaccompanied by evidence that would permit serious judgment of the factual basis for
What the GPL says (Score:4, Insightful)
- Code deliberately licensed by SCO under the GPL
- Secret code copied into the GPL by a third party
Moglen seems to be claiming that since SCO has distributed Linux after discovering its secret code, and thereby accepted the GPL licensing of Linux, it must therefore have accepted that its secret code is also now licensed under the GPL. Its odd that Moglen never actually quotes the GPL itself, although he does cite it.Obviously the licensing of certain code under the GPL by an organisation does not infect everything else published by that organisation. If the secret code exists in the kernel then SCO retains copyright and has not licensed anything.
The only clause that might "infect" the secret code with GPL-ness is the derivative works clause. Section 2 of the GPL states:
So if SCO has modified a stock version of the kernel to create a derivative work then it automatically licenses everything in that new derived work, and all works subsequently derived from it, under the GPL. In theory this applies whether a human being at SCO spotted the secret code or not, although I'm not at all sure that such an argument would stand up to the legal principle that you can only agree to something if you consciously know you are agreeing to it. However, having modified the kernel (creating a derivative work) and then distributed that derivative work, or one further derived from it, knowing that it contains the secret code, it does seem that SCO has indeed licensed the secret code under the GPL.
Moglen states that SCO has dontated chunks of code the Linux kernel. Torvalds has stated that it will be very easy to find out who contributed what in the past. So, can we find out exactly which bits of code were granted by SCO, and if it did indeed create a derived work that would trigger section 2b of the GPL?
Paul.
A reply be another lawyer (Score:3, Informative)
my letter to SCO (Score:2, Funny)
Do not give to PHB - this is very unconvincing. (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Where's the beef?
His first point argues that he doesn't have all the facts. He sets up a strawman outlining what he thinks SCO's position is, and then proceeds to argue against it. Bad form.
2. Why do User's need licenses?
Except for Free software, it's accepted that users need valid licenses for their software. His argument hinges on the position that SCO is going after copyright issues, which SCO hasn't claimed (point 1). PHBs accept software needs licenses.
3. Do Users alr
SCO conference call Aug 14 (Score:3, Informative)
http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/p
The SCO Group Extends Invitation to Join Its Third-Quarter 2003 Financial Results Conference Call
August 1, 2003: 7:00 a.m. EST
LINDON, Utah (PRNewswire) - LINDON, Utah, Aug 1
(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/19990421/SCOL
WHAT: The SCO Group, Inc. Third-Quarter Financial Results
Conference Call
WHEN: Thursday, August 14, 2003, 9:00 a.m. Mountain Daylight Time.
HOW: If you would like to participate in the live call, you may
dial 1.800.811.0667 or 1.913.981.4901; Passcode: 452322.
You may also join the call in listen-only mode via Web cast.
The URL is listed at http://ir.sco.com/medialist.cfm
Only for US copyright law - not true for the UK (Score:5, Informative)
Prof. Moglen makes the point that mere use of a program doesnt infringe the copying provisions of the Copyright Act. That may or may not be the correct analysis, noonetheless its worth pointing out that this is only true for US law. UK readers may be interested to note that under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act section 17(6) (here) [hmso.gov.uk]the making of transient or incidental copies is an infringing act i.e. the mere act of loading it into RAM.
In the UK therefore users of 2.4 kernels would not have this defence if SCO is right. The same may be true elsewhere in the EU.
legal mumbo jumbo (Score:3, Insightful)
There always seems to be a disclaimer with articles like this that the author is not giving legal advice - is it an American thing? For the author not to be responsible for any legal action you take after reading such information?
Echo (Score:2)
But then I realized the more proper question is how many times does SCO have to hear they're full of shit before they finally believe it. Of course, some executives at SCO have already realized this, hence the large number of 'insider' shares already sold.
Wishfull thinking? (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone else notice that the NasDaq Summary Quotes for SCOX nasdaq.com [nasdaq.com] has a article link at the bottom called /K I L L K I L L K I L L -- The SCO Group/ ? I wonder if it works?
Let's put and end to this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't it just as valid to say AT&T UNIX is a derived work of MULTICS?
Who owns the copyright to MULTICS, Honeywell.
So if Honeywell would just start send letters to all of SCO's customers (both of them) demanding they buy a license...
Re:Ugh. ENOUGH of SCO (Score:2)
Re:Ugh. ENOUGH of SCO (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ugh. ENOUGH of SCO (Score:2)
Re:Mistake in the first sentance, not good! (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO, HAS NOT yet got after any end customers...
Yes they have. They are calling Fortune 1500 companies telling them, buy a licence now and when we'll win this legal battle, you will be fine. If you don't buy this licence now, you'll have to pay much much more after we win the case.
Re:Mistake in the first sentance, not good! (Score:2, Interesting)
Think about it this way... when a big company ( say Ford) buys and rolls out Windows 2000 in the enterprise... do they license the use of Windows? Or do they license the use of the Windows technologies in ord
Re:Mistake in the first sentance, not good! (Score:3, Informative)
The author of the article (Egen Moglen) is an extremely well known IP lawyer. He has been the general counsel of the FSF for about 10 years. He has contributed more the Open Software movement than it's likely you ever will, and by several magnitudes. Go listen to him talk sometime, you may find it educational, he's a Very Neat Person.
The typo you complained about was made by the guy who alerted
Re:Mistake in the first sentance, not good! (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, and by the way, s/sentance/sentence/
Note: fewer "legal experts" than lawyers (Score:2)
But...Most people would consider a lawyer to be a legal expert.
Re:I hereby declare any comments.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nice read... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmmmmm...I think it adds the credibility of a lawyers expert opinion. Now I think that adds something to the argument. IANAL is a big joke around here, but its true. We are not lawyers. You can quote common sense all you want, but if a lawyer agrees with you, then your opinion may truly count in the only place this will eventually matter - the courtroom.
Re:"Leading experts"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Which would I rather have? It depends, just as with medicine. If I've just been diagnosed with cancer I'd like to see an oncologist, if I've just had an axe embedded in my head I'd rather see a trauma specialist.
Eben Moglen is an expert in his field and works quietly (and by all accounts very effectively) behind the scenes to ensure that the best possible legal framework is in place to protect the FSF code. You will note that no FSF code has not been attacked by SCO. A professor of law would definitely be best for drawing up licenses and covering all the bases.
On the other hand, a trial lawyer would be a far better person to have if you are about to accuse someone of breaking a license or have to defend such an action.
Both have their place. Being a professor of law doesn't mean he has to win court cases, it means he understands the law, can interpret the law, and can protect his clients appropriately. You will also note that SCO have not attacked the GPL, they just claim that their release of "protected" code was inadvertant and therefore not covered by the GPL.
Re:"Leading experts"? (Score:2)
This might be difficult, but try to wrap your head around the concept that your second question actually answers your first. It could be argued that the best lawyers never have to go to court because they're able to build such a strong case that those opposed to them realize that they would lose and therefore do not pursue the matter.
Having met the man and atte
Re:"Leading experts"? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are an idiot, and so are the moderators who got this up to +4.
News flash - you don't need to be a trial lawyer to be an expert in a legal issue. Maybe you should try reading his resume [columbia.edu] before you go off sounding like a moron. He is professor of law at Columbia University and the FSFs general counsel, but you would rather listen to some Lionel Hutz [snpp.com] when it comes to a legal opinion about copyright issues. Yeah, that sounds like a great idea.
Re:"Leading experts"? (Score:3, Insightful)
It is the academics and professors who are generally the foremost experts on legal matters. When experts on the law are required, particularly on technical or recherche subjects like public software licensing, the experts are most often academics rather than practising lawyers.
Yes, the professorship at Columbia carries a lot more "credentials" in th
Re:Does GPL cover unintended release? (Score:3, Insightful)