Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Caldera Government Operating Systems Software The Courts Unix News

NY Times Reveals SCO/Canopy Group Hypocrisy 223

rjamestaylor writes "The New York Times reports that 'SCO, the company that touched off a computer industry slugfest last spring by suing I.B.M. over its use of Unix software, may find itself embarrassed by a similar claim against a company once related to SCO.' Note that the reporter, John Markoff, ties together Noorda's Canopy Group companies, revealing that: 'Canopy is now SCO's largest shareholder, with two seats on the company's board, and has played an important role, analysts say, in shaping SCO's legal strategy.' He even quotes SCOSource shill Laura Didio as saying, 'All roads lead to Canopy...'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NY Times Reveals SCO/Canopy Group Hypocrisy

Comments Filter:
  • Google Link (Score:1, Informative)

    by moshez ( 67187 )
    Article [nytimes.com]
  • by Locky ( 608008 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @07:40AM (#7198396) Homepage
    I'm sure Mr. Yarro would love to see Linux survice, just as much as Microsoft would have loved to see Netscape survive.
    • I'm sure Mr. Yarro would love to see Linux survice, just as much as Microsoft would have loved to see Netscape survive

      To me, the whole statement seems extremely arrogant. "Sure, I would want your family to survive, but what can I do?".

  • This isn't really the same thing. SCO hasn't sued IBM for copyright violation. They've sued for breech of contract.
  • "It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the SCO" - with apologies to Churchill.
  • Bad light (Score:3, Funny)

    by ultrabot ( 200914 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @07:48AM (#7198419)
    Mr. Yarro said: "I know I've been painted in a rough light. I hope that our companies are our legacy and not our lawsuits."

    You bet. After a while, nobody will remember Canopy from anything else than their lawsuits. And I also hope that Yarro and friends have a nice little cell in their PMITA prison, preferably with a hugely popular LUG consisting mainly of ethnic guys who work out a lot.

    Damn, the whole SCO management could make an entertaining episode of Oz.
    • Having his companies be his legacy won't be much better than having his lawsuits be his legacy. Canopy is the Mormon technology mafia.

      Trolltech seems worthwhile, though...

  • by fuzzybunny ( 112938 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @07:50AM (#7198425) Homepage Journal
    "Mr. Yarro said:
    I know I've been painted in a rough light. I hope that our companies are our legacy and not our lawsuits."

    It's a bit late for that, isn't it? While on the one hand, the massive publicity of the SCO lawsuits may have had, to some degree, the effect of creating some doubt in the minds of cautious CIOs/CTOs, by associating the word "Linux" with "unresolved, potentially damaging IP issues", the comparative lack of visibility of anything actually produced by SCO, combined with the massive media coverage of their seeming focus on litigation will certainly badly tarnish what's left of that company after this whole thing is over.

    Large companies, which are normally fairly conservative on adoption of "new" technologies, will be just as loath to look at anything coming from a company so strongly perceived to be as lawsuit-happy as SCO...
    • SCO and Canopy seem like the Scientologists of the tech industry... very sue-happy, eager to screw anyone who gets in their way, etc.
    • ...the comparative lack of visibility of anything actually produced by SCO, combined with the massive media coverage of their seeming focus on litigation will certainly badly tarnish what's left of that company after this whole thing is over.

      Large companies, which are normally fairly conservative on adoption of "new" technologies, will be just as loath to look at anything coming from a company so strongly perceived to be as lawsuit-happy as SCO...

      I found it kind of sad reading one of the articles co

      • SCO has killed Unix-branded Unix. Can you imagine any company willing to buy a license after SCO started suing some of the licensees (IBM, SGI)? The effort to start a new OS from scratch is enormous. (See BeOS.) Any new OS is going to be based on BSD or Linux. (See Apple.)

        There will never be a new SystemV-based Unix, which means SCO can never sell another license. And most of the current licensees (not including MS and SUN) paid AT&T in full for perpetual licenses, so there is little revenue fro
      • Interesting, isn't it? I think there's an opportunity here, if the reseller's have the gumption for it.

        I mean, they have a whole load of customers, and nothing to sell. They know what their buyers want and need in a system. And there are a lot if techies at a loose and at the moment.

        Sounds like an ideal opportunity for a few ex SCO resellers to band together and found a linux distro.

        After all, the other thing that came across strongly from those articles was this: there's sweet f.a. that SCO uni

    • In other words: lawsuits are his companies.

      Lawsuits is all Yarro's companies produces for revenue generation. Everything else they produce is just fodder for lawsuits. The real product is the lawsuits.

      I'm waiting for a new .1 release, though. The .0 releases are always so messy. The SCO v. IBM lawsuit is a .0 release. Even worse, it's like a Microsoft product with a 4.0 release number attached. The worst of the worst. And it'll crash just as badly.
  • Why was it sealed? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PowerBert ( 265553 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @07:54AM (#7198436) Homepage
    IANAL.

    I'm curious as to the circumstances under which a case can be sealed. I thought it would be to protect victims, or national secrets, etc. The article suggests this case would have had a bearing on SCO vs IBM, could SCO get the case sealed for that purpose? If so, how is that legal!!
    • by rongage ( 237813 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @08:07AM (#7198465)

      Typically, especially in a civil suit, a case can be sealed on request of both parties involved. This is typically done when one of the parties (usually some company) doesn't want "damning evidence or testimony" to be made public. This company would most likely propose a settlement offer that is contingent on the case being sealed and that the other party be prohibited from discussing the case publically.

      In short, it's to prevent bad publicity from getting out.

      Remember the battle-cry of the Slashdot'er - IANAL!!!

    • by jd142 ( 129673 )
      Well, the suggestion in the article was that Lineo used an "innocent actor" defense. They admitted that they did infringe but did so innocently and without knowledge that what they were doing was wrong. In other words, "Whoops, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that happened, let me just take that code right out of there."

      The reason that is important to seal the records is that *if* there is found to be infringing code in Linux (and it is a big if) that is exactly the defense that IBM and others would use. So
      • IANAL, but apparently ignorance of the law is then an excuse in civil court?

        What hey allegedly argued was that they did not know the infringement was happening. In other words, they knew copyright infringement was against the law but they did not know it was happening because they were not the ones who put the infringing code in their product. It was added by an Indian outsourcing firm. (That's what you get for outsourcing! NOW how much money did they save? :) )

        So there you go, don't outsource or use

        • In other words, they knew copyright infringement was against the law but they did not know it was happening because they were not the ones who put the infringing code in their product. It was added by an Indian outsourcing firm. (That's what you get for outsourcing! NOW how much money did they save? :) )

          Ripping off GPLed code and selling it as new code to a customer, eh? I can't find any support for that in the CMM docs. Isn't CMM level 5 what all the Indian outsourcers are claiming?

      • Eventually, I will learn to preview. I did not think a small html error would result in a whole paragraph being missing, but there you go. Below is the comment I meant to put in. Smell that burning Karma!

        IANAL, but apparently ignorance of the law is then an excuse in civil court?

        IANAL, but no, ignorance of the law is not an excuse in civil court, in fact it can get you in more trouble if you don't know the pertenant laws governing your business. But that is not what they argued. (allegedly. Remem

      • IANAL, but apparently ignorance of the law is then an excuse in civil court?

        IANAL eiher, but here's roughly how it works. Ignorance that you're infringing on someone else's copyright is an excuse, if...

        you didn't know the material was copyrighted (or that you weren't allowed to use the copyrighted material); and

        when notified of the infringement, you immediately make every reasonable effort to stop doing so.

        Presumably, one must show some sort of due diligence with respect to the first point. Further,

  • by Picass0 ( 147474 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @08:03AM (#7198451) Homepage Journal

    SEC will be looking into this soon. The girliest screem on the roller-coaster as it goes down will be Darl...

    All roads do not lead to canopy. Yours leads to a federal-pound-me-in-the-ass-prison.
    • The US SEC would have already looked into this already IFF they were going to. iow, the sec is turning a blind eye to this.
      • I doubt it, the Stock hasn't "dumped" yet. The SEC won't get involved until there is clear evidence that SCO doesn't have anything to support their allegations. Until that time there is no wrongdoing. However, if in a few months SCO drops the case, or in discovery it becomes patently obvious that there never was infringement and the stock drops back to the .02 cents its worth (well its not worth that really.. but hey) then the SEC will certainly investigate. This is the first time I've seen the pump and
  • Ouch (Score:3, Informative)

    by theolein ( 316044 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @08:04AM (#7198456) Journal
    Although I'm curious as to how cases in the US legal system can be sealed, I think this will not have much influence on the case of IBM suing SCO for breaching the GPL, as IBM has already subpoened Canopy records. I think the IBM legal team knows full well that canopy is behind it, and if it turns out that GPL software is in SCO without copyright notices, then Darl and Co are in for a lot of pain.
    • and if it turns out that GPL software is in SCO without copyright notices, then Darl and Co are in for a lot of pain.

      SCO has published about six-million lines of GPL software and has violated the license which would otherwise authorize it to do so. I would say they are in for some pain in any case.
  • Fix this issue (Score:4, Insightful)

    by devnullkac ( 223246 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @08:08AM (#7198470) Homepage
    Ralph Yarro, chief executive of the Canopy Group: "The question is: 'How can we fix this issue and move forward?' " he said. "I'd like to see Linux survive."

    How about specifying the violations so they can be corrected in all Linux distributions?

    • Re:Fix this issue (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CmdrGravy ( 645153 )
      he said. "I'd like to see Linux survive."

      This kind of statement really pisses me off. It implies that Linux is somehow in danger of not "surviving" which is clearly not the case at all.

    • The real question should be: How can we fix UnixWare's issues and move forward? I'd like to see it survive... Oh wait.

      • No the real question between the lines is: 'How can we fix this issue and make a lot of money and move forward?' " he said. "I'd like to see Linux survive so that we can charge a fee for each licence. "

    • When he says "I would like to see Linux survive," what he really means is "I would like to see Linux survive as our own personal $699/processor cash cow." Removing any infringing IP from Linux would not do anything for Yarro's goals for Linux survival.
    • by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris DOT travers AT gmail DOT com> on Monday October 13, 2003 @10:46AM (#7198948) Homepage Journal
      How about specifying the violations so they can be corrected in all Linux distributions?

      SCO's IP in Linux is about as elusive as Iraq's WMD.
      • > SCO's IP in Linux is about as elusive as Iraq's WMD.

        That's because we smuggled the code out of Linux and into a neigbouring OpenSource OS.

        Cheers
        Stor
    • How about specifying the violations so they can be corrected in all Linux distributions?

      Dayrl McBride: "Ummm, Nah."

      -
  • GPL involvment (Score:4, Insightful)

    by geschild ( 43455 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @08:14AM (#7198486) Homepage

    According to the article, Montavista found GPL-ed code in Lineo's product.

    Possible implications:
    - the issue who copied from whom has become a lot more important to the SCO court-case
    - Lineo broke the GPL and decided to settle. Why? Did Lineo think that the GPL does hold water? Any way you turn this, it looks no good for SCO and their bickering over the GPL being 'invalid'.
    - The GPL was the basis for law-suit. Just because it was settled out of court doesn't take anything away from that fact. Another strengthening.
    - How is SCO going to deal with IBM's and RedHats quid pro quo: innocent infringement? Innocent infringement means that, although an infringement is aknowlegded by the accused party, the infringement was done unknowingly. In the SCO case it would then become very hard to get any compensation because:
    a) damage will be hard to show anyway (it is probably easily provable that SCO lost more customers because of the lawsuit than because of infringment of any kind).
    b) if any damage is shown, compensation will be low if at all applicable because it was due to 'innocent infringement'.
    c) !!!
    d) Loss for SCO/MS because the victory for IBM, SGI and RedHat will be complete.

    • Re:GPL involvment (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cdrudge ( 68377 )

      The GPL was the basis for law-suit. Just because it was settled out of court doesn't take anything away from that fact. Another strengthening.

      Ah, but it does. It doesn't set a legal precidence. IBM can't come back and say see, this is what happened here in a very similiar case.

      In a past life when I had a part time job as a life guard, I was told by my then employer YMCA that they had always settled drowning lawsuits out of court. Even the ones where obviously not their fault. The reason was that futu

      • Re:GPL involvment (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rich0 ( 548339 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @10:00AM (#7198675) Homepage
        It may not set precedence in the judicial system in general, but it is a legal document just the same.

        If Canopy states that it is their position that the GPL is invalid, the settlement can be dug up, and if it states that Canopy concedes that the GPL is valid, that would probably be admissible in the courtroom. Now, if Red Hat sued MS over the GPL, you couldn't bring out Canopy's admission and use it against MS - but you can use it against SCO.

        Now, if a judge ruled that the GPL was valid, then that WOULD set precedence, and you could use it against ANYONE.

        The settlement in this prior case is similar to finding a memo documenting that a car manufacturer is willing to tolerate lawsuits of up to $x million for wrongful deaths when the company executive just testified that the company doesn't put a price on lives.

        Canopy can't argue in the courts that the GPL is invalid while conceding that it is valid after all.

        Now, if the settlement was a standard no-admission-of-wrongdoing settlement it may not make much impact in the case. But the article suggests this is not the case.
        • >
          it is a legal document just the same.

          But it is not public. It is a private contract.

          >
          If Canopy states that it is their position that the GPL is invalid, the settlement can be dug up

          No, it can't.

          • No, it can't.

            Is there a reason you make this assertion? Are you knowledgeable in the relevant case law?

            I would think that if two companies are in a lawsuit you'd be able to use discovery to find any relevant documentation - especially if a company admits wrongdoing in said documentation.

            I could easily believe that the settlement would remain sealed and IBM would have to agree not to disclose it (just as they would have to agree not to disclose anything they find in discovery). Why wouldn't they be abl
      • I am not a lawyer, (obviously...) and you are probably right about the absence of a precedent. I should have been clearer on what I meant with 'strengthening'. I meant that, given this settlement, other entities are less likely to infringe on the GPL on the basis that 'this GPL has no teeth'. Too many examples already of companies that have folded under the mere threat of a lawsuit based on the GPL.

        I'm no big fan of the cold war, but if nothing else, it has shown that a threat alone can prevent attacks und

    • Re:GPL involvment (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @10:08AM (#7198721) Homepage Journal
      So far, not one company that's found to be infringing on the GPL has been inclined to take it to court. I guarantee you that IP lawyers in every IT firm in the USA has looked at the GPL long and hard, and they've all come to the same decision about it. That's why no one's dared take it to court. If a company thought it could just loot the OSS code base wholesale, it'd do so in an instant. Companies and their boards don't have morals, they just exist to make money. Upper management goes through a special operation to remove any hint of a conscience.

      IBM's legal department is probably bigger than the entirety of SCO. They employ a lot of really bright lawyers and those guys do their homework. They wouldn't be fighting the fight if they thought they could lose, and I suspect they have several knockout punches which they will unveil at the appropriately embarassing times.

      • Exactly. If IBM's legal eagles thought for a second they might lose this, I guarantee they would of quietly bought SCO, then had Darl dragged of to a nice quiet field , kneecapped, nailed to a post and left for the vultures.

        But they can win, so they are going to first destroy SCO in court, then have Darl dragged off to a nice quiet field, kneecapped , nailed to a post and left for the vultures.
      • How the hell is this 'insightful', it's down right ignorant.

        Heres a news flash. Most business leaders are incredibly decent, compassionate, and fair people. To lump them altogether as being part of this money-grubbing evil conspiracy is stupid, moronic, and down right ignorant.

        My evil business leader has ASKED me to spend serious time contributing back to an open source project that we use as our customer support system. He sees this as the fair way to compensate the project for all of the value it's brou
        • Let's change the word immoral then, since it upsets you. 100% of all businesses are extremely avaricious. If they thought they could earn money for nothing simply by "quietly appropriating" the free software codebase, they would.

          There. We've removed claims about morality from statements about big business. Make you feel any better?
          • I think the work is amoral, not immoral. Immoral implies that are aware of morals, and act contrary to them.

            That isn't true, as you point out; they are avaricious and amoral. It's a bad combination, and it's why the original founders of the USA were against corporations; they had limited lifetimes and had to act in the public good, directly (simply not acting against the public good wasn't enough).

            Ciao!
        • Really? What's your business? Are they profitable? Are they hiring?

          My evil business leader has ASKED me to spend serious time contributing back to an open source project that we use as our customer support system

        • My evil business leader has ASKED me to spend serious time contributing back to an open source project that we use as our customer support system ... I'm not working on things that our company needs, but rather general improvements that are useful to EVERYONE.

          So you don't need a support system? Or you're specifically adding features that your company doesn't and (presumeably) won't ever need?

          Not that what your boss is doing isn't really cool. It is. But it doesn't sound like altruism to me. Sounds
      • they just exist to make money

        I'd agree they want to make money. But they also worry about the "court cases of public opinion we can't fix(TM)". The company that "screwed the GPL" would lose a very public amount of respect in the court of public opinion. Sure, the Microsoft influenced magazines and uhhhh, freaking TV network could possibly put a different spin on it. But those in the tech sector would know. SCO knows this. Hell, they've already lost this case because of the court of public opinion. So many
  • I don't know about the IT industry in general, but as far as I can see SCO has made nothing but a fool of itself. Even with those people who aren't Linux fanatics. I've been registred with Caldera as a customer for years and ever since that huge, over the top designed super-glossy flyer came in the mail, along with United Linux 1.0 CDs with all kinds of hand-out gadgets making a big boohay about how Caldera was now SCO Group and all that, I started doubting that this company was going the right way. Especia
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @08:28AM (#7198519)
    This from the termcap file which ESR maintains:

    # COPYRIGHTS AND OTHER DELUSIONS
    #
    # The BSD ancestor of this file had a standard Regents of the University of
    # California copyright with dates from 1980 to 1993.
    #
    # Some information has been merged in from a terminfo file SCO distributes.
    # It has an obnoxious boilerplate copyright which I'm ignoring because they
    # took so much of the content from the ancestral BSD versions of this file
    # and didn't attribute it, thereby violating the BSD Regents' copyright.
    #
    # Not that anyone should care. However many valid functions copyrights may
    # serve, putting one on a termcap/terminfo file with hundreds of anonymous
    # contributors makes about as much sense as copyrighting a wall-full of
    # graffiti -- it's legally dubious, ethically bogus, and patently ridiculous.
    #
    # This file deliberately has no copyright. It belongs to no one and everyone.
    # If you claim you own it, you will merely succeed in looking like a fool.
    # Use it as you like. Use it at your own risk. Copy and redistribute freely.
    # There are no guarantees anywhere. Svaha!
    #

    They've been caught at this many times, most recently in obfuscated slides they showed to the press.

    Many of their copyright violations claims come from taking BSD code, stripping the copyright notices from it and adding their own.

    This is how they come about "ownership" of code in Linux.

    I really don't what what could be lower than stealing code that is free for anybody to "steal" at will.

    Unless it's. . .Ohhhhhhhhhhh, plagerism and deliberate commercial fraud based on same?

    They seem to have invented hypocrisy to the second power.

    Go get 'em Red Hat!

    KFG
    • The example you provide here makes ESR look more like a copyright cowboy than SCO. And that's to my eye -- I'm already convinced that SCO is the Bad Guy.

      SCO (and I'm thinking it's the ancient SCO, frankly) taking code from BSD and stripping that copyright does not give ESR the right to strip all copyrights from the file.

      • The problem being, of course, that SCO refuses to identify code that was actually written by them.

        Since the bulk of the code was clearly not written by them and their copyright claim is fruadulant it doesn't leave one with many options.

        Show us the code, we'll take it out.

        Unless, of course, the code has already been released under the GPL, which the code in this file was.

        Again, show us the code and we can show proper attribution. The code itself though has already been freed.

        KFG
      • The example you provide here makes ESR look more like a copyright cowboy than SCO. SCO ... taking code from BSD and stripping that copyright does not give ESR the right to strip all copyrights from the file.

        I think what ESR is saying there is that the content had been worked over by so many people and had changed so much that it could barely even be considered a derivative work, much less a copy of the original BSD code. Stripping the inapplicable copyright notice in this case is the Right Thing. If one l

    • Aha, thank you. I will consider that my SCO-related entertainment for today :)

      More seriously, I'll bet IBM is compiling as many examples of this sort of behavior to display in court. There will be nothing left of SCO when this is done. Hopefully the SEC will properly deal with the executives, after being sued for all they're worth by the shareholders of course.

  • by 23 ( 68042 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @08:45AM (#7198535)
    Applying my "grep -i $anything_interesting $daily_sco_story" yields:

    Facts from the story: Montavista writes software under GPL. Lineo uses said software but removes copyright notices. Montavista sues Lineo over that (copyrights must be retained under the GPL)! Montavista wins (settlement).

    How cool is that. And here we have people bitching that something as the GPL won't hold up to any major court challenge.

    Smile, people. This is really cool considering that numerous people believe the GPL won't stand a chance in court.

    roland

  • When will SCO sue themselves?
  • "Mr. Yarro, who is also chairman of SCO and led Canopy's lawsuit against Microsoft, argued that his company is not trying to destroy Linux but was simply asserting its intellectual property rights.

    "The question is: 'How can we fix this issue and move forward?' " he said. "I'd like to see Linux survive.""

    Yes, I'm sure that's 'simply' what he's doing. Well then Mr. Yarro how about simply TELLING everyone where the problems lie so they can be fixed?

    Canopy is a bullshit firm designed to do nothing more than
  • just keep crying... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by spectrokid ( 660550 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:59AM (#7198674) Homepage
    We've been bitchin' on SCO for months and at every story somebody posts "Right NOW is the time to sell your stock...." but the truth is simple for all to see: Canopy is a bunch of lawyers with a BIG trackrecord, so you can bet McBride has his ass covered SEC-wise. SCO was dead in the water before this started and they knew it. So McBride and his buddies will screw over SCO, give all the employees a pink slip and all the customers season tickets to go-fuck-yourself-land. Then they will walk away with so much cash you will wish you did it yourself. And there is nothing we can do about it.
    • That would be much more impressive if it had any validity.

      History is full of greedy bastards whose reach managed to exceed their grasp. Do the names Fiske, Goulde, Lehay, Hunt, Boesky, Milliken mean anything to you ? I'm not even trying thats about 15 seconds and financial history isn't even an avocation of mine.

      SCO's situation is now much like the plot of the Producers. If things had of gone as they expected the canopy group would have been sitting pretty. BUT !!, given the fact that their corporate c
  • Didn't they owe us some answers to some questions from several months ago? What was the problem? Were the questions too hard for them?
  • God I hope not. I love this little beast. It would be a shame to put it to sleep.

    Here's from the flash ROM image update I downloaded/burnt a few weeks ago:

    bash-2.05# uname -a
    Linux localhost 2.4.6-rmk1-np2-embedix #2
    /*date-time in japanese*/ armv41 unknown
    This should remind everyone why a totally open framework is preferable. Familiar Linux / MiniGUI seems the way to go now.

  • by PolR ( 645007 )
    The idea that IBM would use "innocent infringement" as a defense is utter nonsense. This not a defense at all. It sounds like a trap. SCO and Canopy would be very happy to lure IBM in this kind of admission of guilt.

    The fact the are willing to embarass themselves to try this kind of long shot is very telling of how desperate they are.

    • No, it's not a trap. "Innocent infringement" mean you just remove the infringing lines, and damages are severely limited or none at all. It would certainly mean SCO would NOT be getting their "3 BILLION dollars! [evil laugh]".
    • The idea that IBM would use "innocent infringement" as a defense is utter nonsense. This not a defense at all. It sounds like a trap. SCO and Canopy would be very happy to lure IBM in this kind of admission of guilt.

      I think you're misreading the article. As I read it, the article isn't suggesting that IBM would itself use the "innocent infringement" argument as a defense; it's saying that if IBM knew that a Canopy company had used that argument, which implies that said company acknowledged the validity

  • Lineo was sued last year by MontaVista, a maker of software for specialized computers used in consumer and industrial applications that is based in Sunnyvale, Calif. The MontaVista executives said they had been notified that software their programmers had written and licensed under the GNU General Public License - the license that governs companies that distribute Linux software - had appeared, with copyrights removed, in Lineo's software. The license, which allows for the free distribution of software, st

  • Offshore IT (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tiny69 ( 34486 ) on Monday October 13, 2003 @11:25AM (#7199212) Homepage Journal
    In a telephone interview, Canopy's chief executive acknowledged that Lineo had infringed on MontaVista's copyrights but blamed the transgression on the work of Hexamark Technologies, an Indian outsourcing company that worked for Lineo.
    Here is something that many companies that are pushing all of their IT offshore may not have thought about. The developers in some third world country may either not care about intellectual propertiy infringement issues or copying others work may be legal in that country (i.e. - they don't have laws saying that it is illegal). But that doesn't help the company that has pushed their business offshore to make a quick buck on cheap labor and may very well be setting themselves up for failure. Getting sued because of something the company you out sourced to did will eat up any profits from working with that company.
    • It's a strange thing for Canopy to blame "Hexamark Technologies". I can't find anything that relates to them on the web and wonder if they even exist.
    • It never stops to amaze me the length to which some /.ers will go to try to find faults with how economics work.

      If the company outsourcing does not stipulate that the contractor has to respect the local copyright law then they deserve whatever they get, which would be the same in any other case since a company is open to the same improperties without mattering at all the location of the consulting company. A local outsourcing company could also introduce copyrighted work, so I see this lame attempt to seed
      • ad hominem

        There are a number of countries that lack the necessary laws to protect the interests of copy right holders. A number of people have mentioned, including kernel developers, that if SCO is successful with their lawsuit against IBM and their threats of charging Linux users, then the Linux kernel development will simply be moved off shore.

        I was pointing out a problem that may be overlooked by companies interested in out sourcing. Lineo obviously overlooked this problem. Yes, a local out sourci

  • Wow, Canopy sounds like another PanIP. "They've played this very cleverly." Yeah, hooray for them, for being clever little weasels and hiring top grade lawyers. That's what business is all about. Yay!

    But anyway, any IP issues SCO may have had in the past are not relevant to their current legal claims, and won't deter them looking like asses making them. Companies don't worry about corporate image in the same way you and I might worry about our personal reputations. Businesses customers don't care much whet
  • We should be reading this article with the same degree of skepticism that we would read an article written by Jason Blair.

    Has the slashdot community forgotten how Markoff reported Kevin Mitnick's case?
    example from 2600 [2600.com] and another [2600.com]
  • Something nobody seems to have noted is that this article appeared in a publication read by "normal" people.

    Sure, sure. We can joke about the NYT, and throw our criticisms about the author; but this is an article in a major newspaper that's critical of SCO.

    It's a good thing (tm).

    Even if it's light (anorexic) on details, it mentions that SCO is suing IBM, then alludes to stock scams, perpetual legal action, hypocrisy, etc.

    I never thought I'd say it; but WAY TO GO NYT!!
  • If IBM does use this as a defense and settles in order to spend as little as possible, could this then imply that SCO does have rights to Linux code?

    Of course, we could re-write the offending bits, but perhaps SCO manages to get that info sealed. Or perhaps, even if re-written, SCO claims that the new code is tainted by knowledge of the now removed code.

    I hope IBM goes for a full win, rather than an easy settle.

    • new code is tainted by knowledge of the now removed code

      This is not possible under copyright law.
      Copyright only regards the specific expression of something, and not ideas.
      • Copyright only regards the specific expression of something, and not ideas.

        What you say is true in the strict sense. However, I am not sure that the conclusion you are drawing about old code not "tainting" new code is correct. Otherwise why would one need "cleanroom" implementataions of software?

        If the code were covered under patent, even the cleanroom version would be in violation. Instead, under copyright, you need to be able to prove that the new code isn't "derived" from the earlier code. Knowlegde o

To do two things at once is to do neither. -- Publilius Syrus

Working...