Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Operating Systems Software Unix News Your Rights Online Linux

SCO Prepares To Sue Linux End Users 1209

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This discussion has been archived.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

Comments Filter:
  • Koan (Score:5, Funny)

    by waitigetit ( 691345 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:56AM (#6742564)
    Linus once asked SCO: "Does Linux have the SCO-nature?"
    SCO answered: "There is no Linux, only SCO."
  • by LordYUK ( 552359 ) <jeffwright821.gmail@com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:58AM (#6742571)
    Lets see... morning coffee... morning donut... morning SCO story...

    the day can start now!
    • by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:25AM (#6743345) Homepage
      Lets see... morning coffee... morning donut... morning SCO story... morning microsoft virus outbreak...
    • by TrekCycling ( 468080 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:51AM (#6743579) Homepage
      Can someone PLEASE come up with a sticker that has Calvin taking a leak on SCO pronto???!!!
    • Re:Thats Better... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by yoriknme ( 533275 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:27AM (#6743950)
      This is nutty. I actually bought my first Linux distro from - it was Caldera then. Since they have my name, are they going to sue me for buying the product? I'd like my money back please.
    • Re:Thats Better... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spikenerd ( 642677 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:44AM (#6744092)
      you know there's a reason we're seeing an SCO story every day--it's because we care. This is the first major test of the GPL, and that's a really big deal! Remember when two planes crashed into a couple buildings in New York and the news just wouldn't shut up about it for months and months and we had to hear about it every single day of our lives? We couldn't even watch our favorite shows because everyone just wanted to blab about terrorists? Well, this SCO case is to geeks as that business with NY, Afganistan, and Iraq was to the rest of the world. I, for one, thought terrorism made bigger headlines than it deserved, but that didn't change the fact that the news was hell-bent on giving people the stories they wanted to hear. Nomatter how tired of it you get, Slashdot is going to keep on telling geeks about every SCO development there is. And I just happen to be on the edge of my seat about it, so if you're sick of these stories, stop looking for them and go do something productive. Slasdot isn't going to hunt you down and force you to hear about SCO.
  • by JamesSharman ( 91225 ) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:58AM (#6742576)
    If you look at what SCO has done since the start of this debacle you really have to question the method and means. They started by saying that the open source community wasn't good enough to produce Linux, they have now gone on to openly attack the GPL Itself.

    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.
    • by den_erpel ( 140080 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:07AM (#6742659) Homepage Journal
      the GPL offers 4 freedoms

      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.
      • by Arker ( 91948 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:15AM (#6742738) Homepage

        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.

        • by Dashmon ( 669814 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:28AM (#6742823)
          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.

          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.
          • by Arker ( 91948 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:39AM (#6742920) Homepage

            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.

            • by killmenow ( 184444 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:46AM (#6743531)
              Didn't SCO just announce the other day a new product that would be distributed with Samba 3.0? I know I read that somewhere...

              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?
      • by fireman sam ( 662213 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:16AM (#6742740) Homepage Journal
        What is being stated is as follows:

        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 :)
        • by Zephy ( 539060 ) * <jon.aezis@net> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:34AM (#6742873) Homepage
          IANAL, so this may be rubbish. but, if the GPL is declared invalid in court, wouldn't most of the code be technically unlicensed?

          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 =/
          • by Shadowlion ( 18254 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:49AM (#6743564) Homepage
            IANAL, so this may be rubbish. but, if the GPL is declared invalid in court, wouldn't most of the code be technically unlicensed?Yes, but.

            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.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:25AM (#6743929)
            GPl is based in copyright. You are setting out a set of copying rights that increase, not decrease the minimum allowed rights granted under the consitiution and law. As such, it is well established that a person may fairly grant or not grant rights of copying to other persons as they see fit. You may forbid coying entirely (legal), you may grant Public domain (you retain no rights to restrict copying) or you may stipulate resonable actions to allow copying. Mostly, this means money paid to the copyright holder.

            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.
      • by Frater 219 ( 1455 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:16AM (#6743254) Journal
        the GPL offers 4 freedoms

        1 Freedom to use.

        The GPL expressly disclaims covering a "freedom to use", stating rather the following:

        Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted ...."

        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.

    • by CowBovNeal ( 672450 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:07AM (#6742665) Homepage Journal
      I don't get it. How is it going to sue linux users without showing them the code?

      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.
      • by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:56AM (#6743064) Homepage Journal
        I don't get it. How is it going to sue linux users without showing them the code?

        Patriot Act?
    • by mgpeter ( 132079 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:13AM (#6742719) Homepage
      ---Letter Ripped off of Linux Today---

      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.
      • by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:32AM (#6742859)
        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.


        Goddam get these boys a beer. Open source commandos all the way. This warms my heart no end.

        I aprove!
    • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:38AM (#6744041) Homepage

      ...what is kneaded here is attack rather than passive defence.

      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)

    by Heem ( 448667 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:59AM (#6742581) Homepage Journal
    Can this thing just end already? When is the US Government, or a federal judge/court system actually going to step in? This just keeps getting more and more rediculous.

    • Re:Jeebus... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ultrabot ( 200914 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:21AM (#6742780)
      This just keeps getting more and more rediculous.

      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)

    by borgdows ( 599861 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @06:59AM (#6742583)
    they'll start with a company that uses AIX, Dynix and Linux

    omg! they'll sue IBM again!
    • Re:OMG (Score:5, Insightful)

      by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:57AM (#6743067) Homepage
      they'll start with a company that uses AIX, Dynix and Linux

      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.
  • by BiggerIsBetter ( 682164 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:00AM (#6742590)
    Massey University is in New Zealand. And New Zealand is not a State of Australia (yet?). Perhaps we can brush up on our geography skills...
  • Oh goodie... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anthonyrcalgary ( 622205 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:01AM (#6742603)
    You know, I thought their stock price was getting a little low.

    They're making IBM's case for them.
  • Linux Counter (Score:5, Interesting)

    by alessio ( 39749 ) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:02AM (#6742607) Homepage Journal
    I'm proudly registered at the Linux Counter [li.org] with number #150681, and I'm going show it off on my homepage.
  • can users infringe? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dan Ost ( 415913 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:03AM (#6742617)
    Assuming for the moment that Linux does contian SCO copyrighted code,
    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?
    • by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:14AM (#6742727) Homepage
      SCO tends to complain about "intellectual property" without identifying the particular genus of IP that they believe is infringed. There are roughly four classes of IP claims: copyright, trade secret, trademark and patent infringement.

      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.)
      • by Arker ( 91948 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:36AM (#6742892) Homepage

        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.

        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.

  • by dq5 studios ( 682179 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:03AM (#6742624) Homepage
    Lets play IP-Infringment Mad-Libs!

    "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.'"
  • by splice42 ( 108862 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:05AM (#6742634)
    ... why SCO can even sue Linux users at this point? I mean, don't they have to actually WAIT for the court decision vs. IBM to come through before suing the users? They're basically saying "following the court decision in our favor in the case of SCO vs IBM that went to court in 2005, you owe us money". Do they have a time travel section in addition to their litigation one?

    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.
    • by BiggerIsBetter ( 682164 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:12AM (#6742707)

      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.

  • by BabyDave ( 575083 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:05AM (#6742636)

    A different lawyer joke, for a bit of variety

    Judge: Mr. Hutz, we've been in here for four hours. Do you have any evidence at all?

    Hutz: Well, your Honor, we've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture, those are kinds of evidence.
  • Smart move by SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ginkelb ( 252008 ) * <slashdot@ba[ ]nginkel.com ['sva' in gap]> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:05AM (#6742644) Homepage
    I think this action of SCO is smart. Smart from SCO's standpoint. I hate the company, just to make it clear.

    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.
    • by Trigun ( 685027 ) <evil&evilempire,ath,cx> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:16AM (#6742741)
      Anyone with even a matchbook lawyer will ask the courts to delay the hearing until after the SCO/IBM and SCO/Redhat lawsuits, as they are the basis of SCO's as-of-yet unproven ownership rights.

      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)

      by jeti ( 105266 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:26AM (#6742817)
      Your memory can't be too good.

      According to a /. article published hardly more than two weeks ago,
      Red Hat set up a legal fund to deal with this kind of tactic:

      http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/04/1817247.sh tm l
    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:28AM (#6742824)
      "Smart" only as a short-term PR move.

      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)

    by Advocadus Diaboli ( 323784 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:06AM (#6742651)
    Well, I'm puzzled by one thing: This SCO FUD is going for a long while now and I've read a lot of comments on /. and other forums where people announced that they filed a complaint against SCO at the Stock Exchange Commision (or however that "control organ" is called) because its almost obvious that SCO is pushing up the stocks to earn some profits.

    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.

    • by MImeKillEr ( 445828 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:23AM (#6742803) Homepage Journal
      Are the people that received the complaints all sleeping or is SCO protected from legal investigation?

      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)

      by div_2n ( 525075 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:50AM (#6743011)
      I dunno but I just called their complaint phone number at (202) 942-7040. Their office doesn't open until 9:30AM EST. I am calling then. So should everyone else. Just be polite and and to the point. They probably won't know or care what a kernel is but they will care that a company is making consistent unsubstantiated claims, threatening consumers meanwhile their execs are dumping stocks.

      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.
  • A quote (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Badgerman ( 19207 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:09AM (#6742673)
    "There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."

    1. Please prove that the liability ends up with the users.
    2. You're the ones starting a lawsuit, SCO. All arguiments about IP aside, you're essentially offering to protect users from yourselves.


    Yeah, makes me REALLY trust them . . .
    • by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:21AM (#6742783) Homepage
      SCO won't be protecting users of GPL software it distributes either.
      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?
  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:10AM (#6742688) Homepage

    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.

  • by DaGoodBoy ( 8080 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:11AM (#6742703) Homepage
    ...because then I could charge them for criminal mail fraud.

    DIE SCO, DIE!
  • Yeah right... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stephenry ( 648792 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:14AM (#6742733)
    The important word there being 'preparing'. Like they're 'preparing' to audit AIX customers, sue AIX customers, sue Linus Torvalds, raise holy Jihad against the GPL... (continues) They've had months to carry this out, yet their STILL preparing to do so? Yeah, right! Looks like their just trying raise FUD to get their stocks out of a proverbial downard spiral, as seen for the last couple of days.

    I'll belive it when I see it!
  • by grungeman ( 590547 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:17AM (#6742752)
    (IANAL, but) I have bought my Linux in "good faith", which means according to German law that I am not liable if the distributor violated any license terms (which I think is not the case). With me all other end users of Linux distros in Germany are immune to any SCO claims.

    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.

  • by loconet ( 415875 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:18AM (#6742758) Homepage
    Sontag warned users that ignoring SCO's requests to license the code in advance of a court case could be costly. "Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement," Sontag said.

    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!
  • by kaip ( 92449 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:20AM (#6742771) Homepage

    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.

  • by wbren ( 682133 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:21AM (#6742786) Homepage
    I wish you people would stop bashing SCO! They are obviously just trying to keep up with the latest trend of giant companies suing their customers and potential customers. They are just trying to be like every other company on the block. If your friend walked down the street in a pair of the newest Nike's, wouldn't you want a pair too? This case is no different! They are just trying to gain acceptance from the RIAA, MPAA etc.
  • by a_timid_mouse ( 607237 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:22AM (#6742796)
    In case you've misplaced the link, here it is. Make your opinion known (but try to be polite, sensible, and most of all: persuasive. Please? Whining probably won't get you very far.)

    SEC Enforcement Complaint Form [sec.gov]

  • by grolaw ( 670747 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:29AM (#6742835) Journal
    If the end-user suits are filed then SCO has taken the fairly obscure legal issue of marginal infringement (never marginal with the expansions in copyright, No Electronic Theft, and the Sonny Bono Acts - innocent infringers simply do not exist) and found a way to snatch total defeat from a nuisance settlement.

    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)

    by superdan2k ( 135614 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:30AM (#6742839) Homepage Journal
    ...I guess our buddy Darl is going for the "it's better to burn out than to fade away" method of running one's company into the ground. (No matter how this lawsuit works out, who the fuck is ever going to want to do business with SCO afterwards?

    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.
  • Dear SCO (Score:5, Funny)

    by salesgeek ( 263995 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:37AM (#6742901) Homepage
    Here is the best answer I know to SCO's attempt to collect license fees:

    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)

    by veldmon ( 595009 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:42AM (#6742943)
    It's time that this FUD campaign come to an end. I own a small business that deploys five Red Hat AS boxes. SCO has already sent my legal department (2 lawyers) three letters (threats) regarding our "illegal use of the Linux operating system [sic]".

    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.

    • by Tsu Dho Nimh ( 663417 ) <abacaxi&hotmail,com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:10AM (#6744322)
      "I own a small business that deploys five Red Hat AS boxes. SCO has already sent my legal department (2 lawyers) three letters (threats) regarding our "illegal use of the Linux operating system [sic]"."

      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)

    by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... m ['oo.' in gap]> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:44AM (#6742958) Journal
    SCO's manoever has never been about anything else than attacking the GPL and the concept of OSS.

    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?
  • by Karl Cocknozzle ( 514413 ) <kcocknozzle&hotmail,com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:48AM (#6742995) Homepage
    ...On a related note, I'm "preparing" to nail Shakira.
  • by Vengeance ( 46019 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:50AM (#6743007)
    The best tactic the community could use, IMHO, would be to overwhelm SCO with piddling, individual small claims. I may be wrong on this, but doesn't a corporate officer or some such have to show up for this, as opposed to legal council?

    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).
  • by nagora ( 177841 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @07:53AM (#6743038)
    What the hell is keeping IBM/RedHat/FSF/HP/Samba/the Pope from having an injunction slapped on these crooks?

    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

  • by AtariDatacenter ( 31657 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:09AM (#6743185)
    Has anyone noticed a pattern here? Every time that SCO gets a major slap-down, they churn out a new press release with some sort of new angle to temporarily bolster their position until the next slap-down? You can practically time the when press releases roll out the factory, folks.

    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.
  • by gnuforpresident2004 ( 698618 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:20AM (#6743303) Homepage
    Unable to afford scalpers' price for a Red Sox ticket, the Tawny Titan heard from an East Coast paralegal while he watched the game from a saloon near Fenway Park. The legal eagle claimed two large Linux customers are eyeing racketeering charges against SCO for asking for money before it proves its case. They would need about four more companies to come forward, claimed the tattler. "Seems like a dream come true for some attorney general," said the Furball. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1224399,00.as p [eweek.com]
  • by gosand ( 234100 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @08:57AM (#6743630)
    The title on the article over at Newsforge is " Linus on McBride's latest claim" [newsforge.com], but the only quote in it from Linus is short and sweet:
    When asked for a comment this morning, Linus Torvalds had this to say about McBride's claim of a million lines of SCO code in Linux: "He's lying."
  • by div_2n ( 525075 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:05AM (#6743714)
    I just got off the phone with the FTC. If everyone calls and complains then the chances they will investigate SCO goes up. They look for patterns. In other words, if the majority of their calls are about SCO then they will investigate. It is time to take the Slashdot effect to the phones.

    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."
    • by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @10:34AM (#6744563)
      I just called a few minutes ago.

      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.
  • by Seanasy ( 21730 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:36AM (#6744017)

    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)

    by ryanvm ( 247662 ) on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:40AM (#6744057)
    What I want to know is - why SCO hasn't set their sights on Google yet? By their own admission, Google has over 10,000 Linux boxes [216.239.37.104]. If SCO still wants $699 a box, that's a cool 6.9 million dollars!!

    I'd like to see them try and get that.
  • by whitroth ( 9367 ) <whitroth@[ ]ent.us ['5-c' in gap]> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:42AM (#6744074) Homepage
    This may be a thought that's been done to death...but isn't this RIAA-like announcement of an assault on end-users, based on a claim that has not been proven in court, sort of like extortion, in the *legal* definition of the term?

    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)

    by Peristaltic ( 650487 ) * on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:46AM (#6744107)
    This crap is not the desparate strategy of a dying company. We are witnessing an oft repeated strategy from a group of people that does business "Enron-Style" (generate high profits without generating anything of value). I lifted a portion of a post from "mec", and an article from the thread:

    ___________________________

    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)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday August 20, 2003 @09:50AM (#6744140) Homepage Journal
    This article is filled with so much misinformation as to be astounding:

    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.

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Working...