ZDNet Examines SCO Indemnity Options 368
Ursus Maximus writes "David Berlind of ZD NET has posted a major opinion/research piece. What do you all think? I don't like the story at all, but he does seem to have made more of an effort to try to find reasons to back up SCO's claims than any of their other supporters have."
RH ducks the punch (Score:3, Insightful)
my guess about why redhat is not offering indemnification is that it would be setting itself up as an easy target.
Maybe RH figures (not unreasonably) that it is better to let the big boys slug it out. I think if it were a choice between RH's lawyers and IBM's lawyers, I know who SCO would go for.
Re:RH ducks the punch (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RH ducks the punch (Score:5, Informative)
Firing one over the bow like that isn't exactly letting the big boys slug it out...
Re:RH ducks the punch (Score:5, Funny)
If not, DoD will discuss licences with them. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RH ducks the punch (Score:5, Insightful)
Mods,
This is both insightful and funny.
Re:RH ducks the punch (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RH ducks the punch (Score:5, Insightful)
A legal defense fund for developers covers EVERYONE that legally can be sanctioned by the court for copyright infringement. Does that explain Red Hat's move better? A clear explanation follows.
There's one thing in these lawsuits that even a non-lawyer can understand that really nullifies the whole point of your article. If I sell you a newspaper with a plagiarized article and the newspaper contains a license that says the newspaper comes with no warranty, you know no one can legally approach you for more license money later, since you never committed a crime. No warranty is a standard contract clause to avoid blame for buggy software, but it can't shift blame for a crime. No license can shift that responsibility. Likewise, only the parties that inserted stolen code and the parties that distributed it can possibly be guilty in this case. Darl McBride is no lawyer and clearly speaks often about legal issues without consulting one. He thinks that because the community owns the software, that they also get to answer for crimes, but they don't own it, since that's not how copyrights work. That copyright and its IP liability rests solely with the software authors or the companies they work for if it's work for hire. If there is stolen code in the Linux kernel, Linus Torvalds can be sued and sanctioned, but Google can not unless they added SCO IP.
HP chooses to indemnify, since it's something their customers ask for without understanding that only the developers can be held liable. Their indemnification doesn't protect modified software, so it's not worth the paper it's printed on. It's a cheap ruse that looks like a selling point.
Secondly, SCO has failed to add copyright claims regarding Linux to their IBM lawsuit after they claimed they were, which is the loudest canary singing today. Their new copyright claims are about IBM's failure to stop shipping AIX instead. Their trade secret claims have gone missing too.
I don't doubt a frivilous lawsuit can be won. I do doubt that it can be won without a lawyer's legal reasoning by the plaintiffs. Just because they can easily confuse the media doesn't mean they can confuse a judge.
Indemnication against vampire attacks? (Score:5, Insightful)
#include <ianal.h> //But I read a lot of Groklaw
I can't imagine any legal theory under which such a suit wouldn't be summarily dismissed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the dismissal were with predudice and possibly even sanctions against the filer. Of course, given the RIAA's success at terrorizing people for downloading music (not distributing it) such a theory may somehow exist.SCO Sues an End User (Score:5, Funny)
Listen, I mean - maybe we can still settle this. I want what we're due... you want what's fair... look: I'm taking one... two... see? Two big handfuls of mints from the nice bowl on the reception desk... all good? Okay so far? Excellent. And I'm keeping my visitor's name tag, and I want on your Christmas mailing list. No? Okay... just the mints and the tag? Just the mints? Excellent.
Hey, look -- Jesus at the copier!!
CHRIS! Grab another handful of mints! Let's bolt!@!!1
~Darl
Re:SCO Sues an End User (Score:5, Funny)
Re:SCO Sues an End User (Score:5, Funny)
No mention of the claims' validity... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the other hand:
1. The fact that the very rights they claim to have are in dispute,
2. The fact that it took them MONTHS to produce, even for the court, any evidence supporting their claims -- and even admitted that they didn't have all of the evidence they'd claimed to have,
3. The fact that their high-priced lawyer hasn't shown up to court in a while,
4. Other facts related to the case,
those DO suggest that this is bullshit, and that there's nothing to fear.
So yeah. Don't believe us because we're loud. Believe us because the evidence supports us.
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't underestimate the US court system. I'll believe you if and when SCO's last appeal is dismissed.
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... (Score:5, Informative)
The real issue is that what evidence they have produced in court is simply pointing out a well-known fact: that IBM contributed code that IBM itself wrote into Linux. SCO doesn't even claim ownership of the code; they are just claiming that IBM was supposed to ask SCO before contributing it. SCO does not claim and cannot support that there is any System V code in Linux.
So, regardless of whether IBM contributed code improperly or not, there is no code in Linux that is a "derivative work" of any SCO property. The asking permission thing is a contract dispute between SCO and IBM and end users can't be held liable for that; nobody but IBM can. And it looks very much like SCO has no control over IBMs actions since (1) Novell has retained the control rights for existing Unix licensees, and (2) the AT&T license gave it no rights over licensees own code anyway.
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... (Score:5, Informative)
I work for a large law firm in the UK - we typically advise clients there's a base 10% chance of losing a cast-iron case. Would be surprised if the position is very different in the States (and presumably jury trials are significantly more uncertain).
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... (Score:5, Funny)
Finally... the solution to
1. Something.
2. SUE EVERYONE.
3. Profit.
Berlind's trying to present a "balanced" view (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an easy game to play until you notice that you have to include the quality of the evidence somewhere in the equation. At which point TSG's case goes all wahoonie-shaped.
I can just about imagine the IBM legal office examining TSG's amendmended complaint (I'm pretty sure they want to nail TSG's hide to the shed, if possible, no quarter asked or given): "Amendment fourteen!" <pause> <raucous laughter> "No! Wait! Wait! Amendment eighteen! Amendment eighteen! Unnnnn-believable! <bwaaaaah-hah-har!> Get a load a'tha' second sentence! Whoooe!" <more raucous laughter> ...
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... (Score:4, Insightful)
The truth is - we have too many hungry lawyers who BS better than our policymakers can stand up for what should be right.
In the long run doing all this FUD probably will hurt SCO even if they win - as not all their code is owned by them and if they were to win who's to stop another code contestor from suing for his piece of the pie?
In the past advancement was achieved by standing on the shoulders of those before you. Advancements today are achieved by standing on the feet of all those around you.
Re:No mention of the claims' validity... (Score:5, Informative)
As long as the ownership of any property (in this case the UNIX IP) is under dispute between two parties in a court of law, then the end user of that property is under no legal obligation to listen to or believe in the claims of either of the parties. The end user is only obligated to the contract she entered into with the original party at the time she started using the property, until directed to do otherwise by the court.
E.g., A rents B a house, and B, in good faith, signs a contract with A to pay a certain monthly rent, gets the keys to the house and starts using it. A couple of years later, C shows up and tells B that the house actually belongs to C, and B should be paying rent to C and not to A. Then, A and C sue/counter-sue each other re. the ownership of the house, and a court starts to look at the matter. While the matter is sub-judice, (and without any clear directive from the court to put the rent in an escrow fund etc.), B is only obligated to follow the contract with A.
This is true especially if the matter is sub-judice. So the issue of indemnity is moot.
cheers- raga
The article does not (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps there is some doubt as to how much of the copyright Novell and SCO actually own, perhaps some of the finer points are in doubt too, but there are far too many clear cut lies from SCO, and that AT&T statement from 1985 really cuts the ground from underneath them.
Once you get that in perspective, the reason to not offer indemnification makes a lot more sense.
Amazon and anonymity... :-) (Score:5, Funny)
Wouldn't that be a wonderful (temporary) bug in slashcode, too? I am willing to implement the bug myself, just to see what grubs are found beneath the rocks...
Pretty please with lots of sugar Cowboy Neal et al?
Skipping to the conclusion... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, you have one question to ask yourself: How much peace of mind do you have now and how much more are you willing to spend for a little extra?
Others here have argued that the appearance of such warnings in the popular press - making Linux a risk - was part of SCO's intent all along. Don't know if they're right but the warnings are here.
Re:Skipping to the conclusion... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Skipping to the conclusion... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Skipping to the conclusion... (Score:3, Informative)
Yup, the appropriate "old saying" is... (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an idea for a new term, "thescogroupgelt"... hmm, doesn't roll of the tongue too well. How about "canopygelt"? (-:
Re:Yup, the appropriate "old saying" is... (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft shill ? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.wirelessenterprisesymposium.com/symp
Sounds like permanent brain damage to me.
Ziff-Davis is a Microsoft shill. Their bias
is pretty transparent.
Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
Same. Old. Story.
Re:Microsoft shill ? (Score:5, Interesting)
However, living in the real world, it's a bit difficult to run a series of IT publications without writing about Microsoft and its products given their dominance in both the enterprise and the consumer markets. ZD (or CNet, IDG, VNU, etc) ignoring Microsoft would be about as sensible as a mainstream movie magazine ignoring any Hollywood productions.
Frankly, I'm fed up with this "Ziff-Davis is a Microsoft shill" line. ZD has spent the last two decades writing about Microsoft (and other) products that run on Microsoft operating systems because that's what sells magazines. If Joe Average had wanted magazines about Unix instead then they would have written about Unix instead, but they didn't, so get over it.
And, finally, why you would be surprised that the editor of a publication called Windows Sources would "push for exclusive coverage of Windows NT for business users" is a mystery to me - would it make more sense to you to devote large chunks of coverage to other OSes in a magazine that's devoted purely to Windows? I guess you'll be demanding that Apple magazines now cover Linux too.
Re:Microsoft shill ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay. You're fed up with it. Regardless,
it's true. I got fed up with Ziff-Davis
and stopped subscribing to PC Magazine.
ZD has spent the last two decades writing about Microsoft (and other) products that run on Microsoft operating systems because that's what sells magazines.
Used to sell magazines. ZD is in a big hurt
these days. You're also ignoring the other
side of equation : ad sales. ZD was notorious
for kow-towing the Redmond. IMHO ZD went out
of their way to attack Linux in the early days.
They tried to bury the baby in the cradle.
They're sill trying to kill it. ZD could have
had some balance and pemitted some criticism
of the advertizers
the big reason ZD is irrelevant now.
If Joe Average had wanted magazines about Unix instead then they would have written about Unix instead, but they didn't, so get over it.
Oh beleive me, I am over it. Who subscribes
to PC mag. anymore? Or Computer Shopper ?
Or Network Week? or whatever fad bandwagon
ZD tried to domesticate?
ZD would have been better of hedging their bets.
The ruined their credibility.
Re:Microsoft shill ? (Score:4, Informative)
That being said, I agree that ZD is fairly useless set of publications these days as are its parent CNet's offerings. Back when there were several viable operating systems and office suites they slanted their coverage toward Microsoft, probably to please their biggest ad customer.
Yes, there are some people at CNet/ZD that are not big fans of Microsoft, but there are more that seem to know nothing but the standard Microsoft line-up and when mentioning any alternatives do so tentatively.
I cancelled my paper subscriptions long ago, and only read their stuff online when linked to by Slashdot and the like. I occasionally check Anchordesk for its comedic value.
Re:Microsoft shill ? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that isn't the point, and it this is bordering on strawman argumentation.
Of course you would expect such behavior from someone in that place. That, in fact, is exactly the point. Given such an investment in the past, looking at that in light of current behavior is simply sensible.
This is no different than considering a politician's background then looking at what they're currently peddling.
I'll leave it as to others to think about this in context with the rest of your ZD rant, and only say this. Suppose you're covering the local farming industry, and in order to survive as a company, you have to keep the Big Local Farmer happy. That's fine, but if people doubt your integrity when covering that particular farmer, I don't believe you have any legitimate complaint.
Re:Microsoft shill ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Tell us about the connection between size of ad budget and e.g. results on reviews...
I lost my innocence when Word 6 was released on the Mac and got good reviews in the trade rags -- while all Mac users hated it because it was both buggy and really slow. Word 6 was faster if you ran the Windows-version in VirtualPC (or what the emulator of the day was called; I talked to people that had tried but never tried).
The interesting thing was that the columnists in the Mac magazines hated it -- they had some deal wich didn't sign away their souls. If you're in the business, please inform me:
Can you still more or less trust the columnists in trade magazines or are they just supporting the ad sales team, too?
Re:Microsoft shill ? (Score:5, Interesting)
How much do ad budgets influence reviews (and other content)? No, I don't believe zero -- or 10 percent, for that matter.
I explicitly used software as an example and the previous discussion was about Mirosoft/SCO. There was no need to waste your time discussing hardware. (And, yes, obviously there are influencing factors from reviews of beta versions. Etc, etc. Not an answer.)
This when I gave an example (from middle of the '90s!!) when reviews and articles where totally different from both user experiences and columnists that could write freely... (I even started it with "I lost my innocence when"!) Search Oct-94 to Mar-95 on groups.google.com for "word 6" and "macintosh".
You are joking and/or condescending. Or just not answering a simple question with the tried and true method of starting a large discussion of other matters.
ZDNet is CNET, not Ziff Davis (Score:4, Informative)
Among CNET properties, ZDNet seems to be oriented towards Windows-loving IT pros. Maybe that's part of its Ziff-Davis heritage, or just a marketing decision.
Re:Microsoft shill ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft shill ? (Score:5, Insightful)
So no, you don't have to be a Linux zealot not to want to hear such a crappy work of journalistic spin.
SCO Code in Linux (Score:5, Funny)
I can see why no one wants to pay $699 for it!
What did SCO buy--Unix or the Brooklyn Bridge? (Score:5, Insightful)
This was another garbage article by Berlind IMHO. Even if SCO did "own Unix" (which it does not!) The whole idea is irrelevant. None of "Unix" got put into "Linux". Even if a few lines out of millions got copied in the there, the concept of "de minimi" applies. Such as small amount is in there that it is irrelevant. Case closed.
Re:What did SCO buy--Unix or the Brooklyn Bridge? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Linux is API compatible with UNIX. How? Because they read the standards and the man pages. I keep on bringing up that some code that uses select() for timing breaks on Linux because they copied the man page and not the code. Their cleanroom version was copied from the old BSD manpage, and is not bug-compatible to the way that BSD implemented it.
2) They don't even need to be cleanroom, they can just use the BSD code.
What a freakin' moron. Two uninformed pieces.
Re:What did SCO buy--Unix or the Brooklyn Bridge? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand - who would have to pay SCO for what? If IBM violated their contract with SCO, it would be only IBM who is responsible for SCO's alleged damages, not me, you, Linus, Red Hat, SUSE, or unrelated 3rd parties.
Also, it is important to note that SCO is not even alleging copyright infringement with regards t
One Interesting Paragraph... (Score:5, Interesting)
Argh, has the legality of SCO asking for that money even been established? Yeah sure I'll skip the corp-lawyers and take the advice of a fucking net-journalist and fork over the dough. Is it even to get SCO to accept the money? [zgp.org]
Re:One Interesting Paragraph... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One Interesting Paragraph... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like kidnappers. Show them you're willing to cooperate by handing over the ransom, they'll just ask for more...
Re:One Interesting Paragraph... (Score:4, Funny)
No, they are not. (Score:4, Insightful)
They're asking for you to pay for their "intellectual property" in Linux, and there isn't any. The short name for what they're doing is "fraud", and yes, it is illegal.
A - Its ZDNET; B - Its an opinion piece (Score:5, Insightful)
10-Q worries? (Score:5, Informative)
Compare with SCO's S-3 (Score:5, Informative)
PJ compares SCO's worst case scenarios with those of RedHat, IBM & co.
It makes for much more interesting reading than many of the other legal filings I've read... Note how in that article, SCO describes quite a few ways in which its business could fold, compared to rather bland statements that something bad might happen in the off chance SCO ever actually prevailed with some bit of their case.
It's kind of fun to read all the various ways in which SCO might be liquidated, though. I wonder which of them will happen?
Lame article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Though, I must admit, this is probably one of the better FUD articles I've read. Rather, it takes a new approach...
"Hey, normal users don't need to worry - you're safe. It's the big companies that have to worry. Just forget about it, and let SCO do their thing."
I'm not sure -- but it appears to me that the article is somewhat geared towards telling normal Linux users to abandon concern for the SCO situation and let the corporations take it all on alone.
Perhaps a new FUD tactic attempting to break up the community?
Regardless, I have a headache after reading it. 99% of the information in that article I've read 20 times already - with the only exception being the articles strong attempts to alleviate any concerns that normal Linux users may have of being sued.
SUN's hand is revealed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SUN's hand is revealed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:SUN's hand is revealed (Score:3, Interesting)
Great - a conspiracy theory. So Darl or his secret masters have an expert master plan to topple linux and IBM, which somehow involves looking stupid for a really long time before the final few seconds of the court case when all will be revealed. I don't think there is a hidden agenda.
The secret masters are still in beta.
Re:SUN's hand is revealed (Score:5, Informative)
See this article [com.com] for some McNealy FUD right after SCO started this. Such as:
"We think open source is wonderful and good, but we also believe in copyright and the rule of law," McNealy said.
"We paid a big, big bag of money a decade ago to get IP (intellectual property) rights to do what we wanted to do with Solaris," he said at a press conference announcing a new line of Intel-based servers on Monday. "We've got a free and clear SCO license. Your audit committee won't get a letter if you are using Solaris." said Sun chairman Scott McNealy.
Compare that to HP's response at the same time:
"HP is unaware of any intellectual property infringement within Linux. The complaint is focused on alleged inappropriate behavior by IBM, it is not about infringement by Linux itself of SCO's IP rights."
and Larry Ellison was quick to point to Microsoft as one of the groups behind the scenes:
"All Bill (Gates) says is, 'Give me the opportunity to innovate,' and once again Bill is innovating," Ellison said during a press conference announcing an alliance between Oracle and Sun to promote Sun's Intel-based servers. "You've seen advanced bundling and now you are seeing extreme litigation...They know a lot about extreme litigation."
Author seems to be pro-SCO (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, in this article too, nowhere has he questioned the validity of SCO's claims. He seems content to criticize other companies for their indemnification programs.
Re:Author seems to be pro-SCO (Score:4, Funny)
He says:
He explicitly states that SCO's claims could be dismissed. The point of the article is simply to explain how linux users can be protected if this isn't the case.
Wrong (Score:4, Funny)
let me translate:
1) I, wise sage, have studied the case
2) You, stupid dope, have not
3) I conclude there is much to this lawsuit and it will be difficult to dismiss
He's so full of shit that he burps brown.
THe point of the article is to say:
Wow, this is complicated, you can't understand it. FOrtunately, I do understand it and let me tell you, this looks really difficult for you if you use Linux.
He ignores that fact that SCO has changed their tune in the lawsuit; they no longer claim they own Linux/Unix/AIX; they're saying "Oh look, shiny!"
Please stop trying to defend this guy; he's a moron with a word processor.
Re:Author seems to be pro-SCO (Score:3, Interesting)
Now - to be fair he does note "...as a user of Linux, protecting yourself from an SCO-law suit could easily be a waste of money." But by the time he's done with the article he's advising " Basically, you have one question to ask yourself: How much peace of mind do you have now and how much more are you willing to spend for a little e
Catering to the PHB (Score:5, Interesting)
indemnification or not... (Score:5, Interesting)
What he probably meant to say was "my intended audience of (frightful?) enterprise users of Linux are NOT developers, so they don't want to know who is gonna get sued, they only care if they are gonna get sued..."
I also found it odd(in the sense that it indicates his research was skewed as not to sound alarmist) that he spent so little time speaking about how vital a part of a proper support contract indemnity used to be (in Mainframe and Minicomputer environments, which aren't as plentiful now) and are now being forgotten because people think anyone MCSE can run what they call "a departmental server" on 2000$ hardware with no backup or redudancy... As for indemnification I always thought a good rule of thumb was if your computers systems total 50000$ of book value, or handle more than a million a year in money value, you should either get indemnification, or negotiate an equivalent value out of your support contract(equivalent to the indemnification, not the 50000)
If anything, we live in interesting times...
People are easily confused.... (Score:5, Insightful)
by the complications surrounding indemifying Linux because they don't understand the nature of Linux distributions. Linux and a distribution are not the same, yet Berlind keeps confusing the two in the case of HP, Sun and IBM, even though two of them contribute code and the other offers Linux on its hardware via Red Hat; one of them is suing SCO and the other two are indemifying against SCO lawsuits.
I don't see anything wrong with Red Hat's position; the software business is after all a get-rich-quick-via-litigation arena these days, and they are a valid target. So I don't buy Berlind's arguments of a preemptive strike either.
I'm not arguing against indemnity per se, but, especially in reference to Linux, I don't think anyone really knows how to measure it as an insurance cost; the estimates are currently wildly high or low. There would be a high barrier to entry from most insurers point of view in any case, which is why the big companies do a lot of research and wait to be sued over a product rather than take out a policy and cross their fingers.
He doesn't think much of SCO's chances... (Score:4, Interesting)
That is to say, he doesn't sound like he thinks SCO might succeed (it's a "desolate stretch of highway"), but that perhaps you should get indemnification *before* more "traffic" (somebody with a legit claim... say, somebody with a "defensive" patent...) comes along.
American FUD (Score:5, Funny)
A long long time ago, I can still remember how Unix used to be so great, tape drives were as big as cars for saving files, known as tars and perhaps, we could save it from its fate
But Richard Stallman surely shivered when Windows NT was delivered, with icons on the desktop and a flying toaster backdrop
But I can't remember if I cried such great relief I felt inside, we had IBM on our side the day Caldera died
*Bye Bye Mr. Darl McBride, claimed there's Unix in our Linux but we know that you lied, and them Redmond boys are cursing Samba and WINE, thinking this'll be the way that they die, this'll be the way that they die.
Did you use the kernel source? Well the GPL you can't enforce. Just because I said it is so, we'll sue you if you don't desist, its not a slap across the wrist and that's the FUD that's coming out of SCO
Well, he belongs in a prison cell, or in the fiery pits of hell, his name is Darl McBride, and he'll take you for a ride, his SCOsource license costs a grand, but no one's got one in his hand. We all told him to go pound sand, the day Caldera died, we were singin'
repeat *
Didio came to spread the FUD, and SCO was after Linus's blood, but that's not how its going to be, cuz PJ came and did her blog, and Darl I'm sure, that dirty dog, reads it all, quite religiously
In Las Vegas back in August, SCO tried hard, tried with earnest to prove Linux wasn't free, but they showed us BSD. We all laughed and we all reeled, when we observed what they'd revealed. So now they keep their claims all sealed, the day Caldera died, we were singin'
repeat *
Then they released some header files, and that left them on the tiles, cause the files contained not a line of code. You can't lay claim to 123, its just a number you can see, that simply tells the program how to load
It's public knowledge, for all to know, that's what was told by us to SCO, but did those fools believe it? They just could not conceive it. We own Unix and all the works, all its traits and all its quirks, and then they called us stupid jerks, the day Caldera died, we were singing
repeat *
And now they're suing Novell too. They'll sue me and they'll sue you. They're saying this in every place. They are fighting against our IBM, and fighting the owners of RPM, but they don't have a solid case
It's gonna bust its gonna break, investor's money they plan to take. Stock won't be worth a dime, and it will be a crime. Insider trading we'll all cry, Linux was just their alibi, Darl and Kevin the feds will try the day Caldera died, we're a singin'
repeat *
When times were dark and things were glum, Darl had Linux by the thumb. Someone had to save the day. But like an episode of Scooby Doo, PJ and friends all came through, and Linux is here to stay
But back in Utah, so it seemed, SCO did cry, and then they screamed. They couldn't match a token, no copyrights were broken, and the OS I admire most, is free to all, from coast to coast, and SCO is but a distant ghost, the day Caldera died, and we were singin'
repeat *
IANAL or a poet or a musician. So there.
Re:American FUD (Score:5, Funny)
I am a founding board member of the nonprofit corporation that acquired the rights to the coffeehouse in which Mr. McLean first performed American Pie. As such, in our opinion, American Pie is a derivative work of our orginization.
Please remit a check for $699 dollars to me immediately.
Oh, yeah. Make it out to "cash," 'K?
KFG
OMG this is funny (link) (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OMG this is funny (link) (Score:4, Informative)
To quote the lead comment on Groklaw... "priceless!" ;)
Let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me a break. First of all, what are your chances of actually being sued by SCO? Fairly slim, I suspect. And even then, a simple motion that says "Your honor, Novell claims they have the copyrights to this material, and SCO is involved in legal process with them. Until such time as SCO can demonstrate that they actually own the property they are claiming, I move the case be placed on hold.
Second, so SCO sues you - I don't believe that they can win (see Groklaw for exhaustive details. You don't look bad to anyone except perhaps a few SCO or MS shills. Everybody else thinks you are a hero!
Finally, even assuming that SCO does own the copyrights, they still have yet to prove that any of their code is in Linux. That's what the IBM lawsuit is all about. And if you check the analysis on Groklaw, SCO is digging their own grave at warp speed.
Ziff Davis is being irresponsible and is givnig VERY bad advise.
Re:Let me get this straight.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, you don't even have to do that. Things are going roughly the way I predicted a while ago. SCO threatened Lehman Brothers and they responded, in essence:
"Dude, you got the wrong party. We use Red Hat. If you have issues with your IP in Red Hat you have to resolve them with them. Now run along."
Red Hat is the one to bring up the Novell issue. The end user is the lowest man on the precedence totem pole and you work up from there.
Oh, wait. Red Hat has already sued SCO. Go figure. Well, that settles it. The issue of SCO's IP in Red Hat is already before the court.
KFG
No shit... (Score:4, Insightful)
At *most*, the "indemnification" that a company or end-user would require would be some sort of guarantee that, should they be required to stop using any part of Linux, an alternative would be available. I think the weakness of SCO's case and the response of the community has already allayed those fears.
In fact, that's the entire reason for using Open Source as opposed to closed alternatives. Everyone knows that, should just about *any* part of Linux or any other Open Source project be encumbered, a suitable replacement will be found.
Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
A question for SCO. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A question for SCO. (Score:5, Funny)
Cultish?!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Mr. Berlind wrote that we open source-ers are 'cultish.'
That's ridiculous.
I say we hex him.
SCO Linux? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Go Ahead, Make My Day" (Score:4, Informative)
Why??? (Score:5, Interesting)
The only thing we've seen are claims that are nothing short of saying anything IBM has touched is stolen from SCO...It's obvious that SCO has no plans to actually cooperate with the kernel dvelopers, as there has really been no attempt at contacting the developers directly...
There's really no reason for this type of speculation until the courts actually make their decision...this article seems to assume that SCO's claims are as good as gold...To be honest, SCO doesn't look to be moving on their end...
This Guy is not a Lawyer. (Score:3, Insightful)
Rolling eyes (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess most people realize this guy knows little about computers, and nothing about law, so his main claim to fame is...that he is a journalism major writing for Ziff-Davis? That means his rant is just a nicely worded Slashdot troll.
He writes like he knows something when in fact he's being completely uncritical of not only *fact* but recent events. Particularly how SCO's lawsuit has completely changec character and is now down to 60 lines of code that they claim were copied.
SCO's case is on its last legs, but he talks as if SCO is an aggrieved party looking for a little love.
Lets do some digging on this chump and see what other jems he is pushing on an unsuspecting public.
Feel for the tech journalist (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, to write a really good summary of what's going on, you'd need to be skilled at law, software development, and journalism, and I'm fairly convinced that anyone that's really competent in all three areas is not going to be making a living as a journalist.
The degree of uninformed commmentary all over the place means that few people *do* have a good handle on what's going on. From what I can get from reading this guy's archive, he tends to hobnob with CEOs/upper management of tech companies, who naturally are going to happily feed him whatever line they think will best manipulate him. He isn't going to sit down and start reading through legal code.
So, is he uninformed and parrotting BS? Sure. On the other hand, are *most* people involved? Sure. The only people that I'd really claim to know what's going on are in IBM's legal team -- and those folks, beside having an obvious bias, take the approach of not saying anything that might be wrong. Lawyers are conservative about making statements. Journalists, on the other hand, need to make impressive announcements and insights on a constant basis. Does this mean that accuracy suffers? Sure. But if it didn't, they wouldn't get paid.
I agree that anyone at this point that's worried about using Linux because of SCO is pretty much either uninformed or awfully paranoid. I've keept a reasonably close eye on groklaw and other parties involved -- and I've never even coded on the sections in question or taken any civil law courses. I think that Slashdot *was* overeager to pronounce SCO full of hot air, but at this point, they really have no case against Linux users. There are so many counterarguments that could be used if even one failed that would blow away their argument that it isn't even funny.
IBM shareholders might be a bit worried about the continuation of AIX, which is more at risk than Linux, but honestly, I still wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I had a bunch of AIX deployments. Given the data that's come up from Novell and IBM, and how weak SCO's arguments have been once in the light, this case shouldn't have been a worry for at least a month or two now.
Yawn. Enough winking, let's dance (Score:5, Insightful)
email to the author (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll post any response I get
Re:email to the author (Score:3)
yet another clueless journalist (Score:3)
First, regardless of who owns SysV, SCO can't find any of it in Linux. Therefore, the "who own SysV?" question is moot.
Second, this case hinges on SCO's alleged contracts with IBM. I'm not a party to those contracts. If IBM put stuff into Linux that they weren't supposed to, then, that's a tussle between IBM and SCO. Not "me and SCO", or "Lehman Bros. and SCO". IBM and SCO. Period.
SCO's case rests on their bastardized idea of "intellectual property" that no lawyer that I know of (outside of their paid counsel) has bought into. Plenty of lawyers are laughing at them.
My feeling is that the "SCO case", and I mean all of it, will be over far quicker than most people think. It'll be sudden, unexpected, and leave everybody with their jaws dropped. You heard it here first...
I agree with the author... (Score:3, Informative)
You don't need to worry.
Read Groklaw. Sit back. Laugh.
Worry? I don't think so.
==
Fight Fire With Fire (Score:5, Interesting)
This could open an avalanche for copyleft. It would mean any code which has ever been *near* any copylefted code would be owned by copyleft. Removing the copylefted code would be no remedy. The FSF would have field day chasing down all past GPL violators and any company which has even looked at GPL code (the majority, even if they won't admit it or actually used it?). The opportunity for retribution against the Darl McBrides of this world would be fantastic, and make others wish the SCO case had never happened.
Moronic Op piece (Score:5, Interesting)
Netware as GPL? IBM writing a clean kernel? (Score:5, Insightful)
- IBM urgently writing a 'clean' kernel, when they don't know what is tainted?
- Novell releasing NetWare as GPL? Who would migrate to NetWare simply because Linux was no longer an option?
Both of these silly suggestions imply people want to run Linux for its kernel - whereas most people have limited interest in the kernel, but want an OS to let them run applications.
The information on indemnification wasn't bad, but the legal advice is essentially "Stop and think - accidents can happen to you". FUD
"Analysis" Has No Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't. Whether you distribute proprietary software or GPL'd software, there is always a nonzero risk that some of your code, one day, might be held to infringe someone else's intellectual property rights. Indemnifying against that risk therefore has nonzero cost. Proprietary software vendors can cover that cost in the license fee they charge for the software. But GPL software vendors do not and cannot charge a "license fee" for the software.
Obviously, GPL software vendors can and do charge for other things, such as maintenance and support, access to FTP and web sites, or even copies of the program. But they cannot charge a "license fee" for the right to obtain or use the program. If you can't and don't charge a license fee for the code, you shouldn't be expected to provide either a warranty or an indemnity.
I'm in the wrong business (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly it's complicated but not beyond human reason to comprehend. Let's take just one line:
IBM's AIX has a different question mark over it. Nonetheless it's a question mark
This says one thing loud and clear: You've never worked with IBM on a project. They're as Death Star about IP as anyone I've ever worked with. And that was WAY before the SCO business ever surfaced. That's not even going into detail on the merits of SCO's case. But he didn't have to, so neither do I.
weigh the total cost of protection versus the risk of being sued by SCO (or maybe someone else).
Spoken like a true low-level pussy. You can get sued these days whether the other side has a case or not. Some cases are just to keep you distracted while one of their partners moves in on your deal. If the threat of litigation puts you off these days, you might as well consign yourself to a life of being someone else's bitch because that's all you're going to be. If the other side knows that's all it takes, they'll make it a reality.
And before anyone steps up and says that's easy for me to say because I've never been sued...screw you. I've been through it twice already. Litigation is just another business tool today so learn to deal with it. Best thing you can do is keep your professional liability insurance paid up and learn how to find the "oh, shit" lawyers (they're not even always the most expensive). The ones who send out a letter and the other side goes, "Oh, shit, not them." Just the name on the letterhead can make you a bigger pain in the ass than you're worth. I spend time down at the courthouse talking to lawyers, ask them who they hate to see coming. After a while a handful of names will surface. They're usually bastards, but they're your bastards. It makes a difference. Lot of firms just run up the charges and don't really do the work. You have to find the ones that actually work for their 300/hour. Talk to the court house people. Who files the most appeals when they lose, those people are motivated to win.
Plan for it. Budget for it. It's going to happen even if you're St. F'ing Peter. You'll get through it.
OT: Has anyone checked OpenUNIX for violations? (Score:4, Insightful)
Open source is cultish? My response.... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to point out something:
"SCO is a tiny company in Utah, with opposition that includes some of the
largest companies in the world, millions of Linux users, and the leaders of the
cultish open source movement."
Why is it that anytime there is something in the world that doesn't fit a mold
which is familiar to the layperson it is considered "cultish"?
I like GNU/Linux because it helps me run my business and because of all of the
other advantages of open source and free software and because I dare to be
different and think that some ideas should be free and open to the public.
Our founding fathers believed this. Why is it so hard to convince people
these days.
I do not think that makes me a member of some cult. If it does, then this
country is truly in deep trouble when it comes to personal freedoms.
Aside from the glaring inaccuracies and omissions, which I won't bother to
point out since the refutation of most of what SCO has said is on the net for
all to see, you're article disappoints me because it resorts to this type of
name calling to prove it's point.
What most people interpret as "cultish behavior" is the love and the attachment
which Linux users have to the operating system that they have worked so hard to
create. This sentiment is prevalent in many other communities. Last time I
talked to a die hard windows fan, I could swear I was talking to a cult member.
Please remember, that by stereotyping an entire community, such as you have
done in your article, you seek to diminish it's voice.
Good day, GJC
=====
Gregory John Casamento -- CEO/President Open Logic Corp.
told 'ya so (Score:3)
I urge Slashdotters to not be blinded by their idealism and realize that this is a corporate battle for shareholder interests. What's "right" has absolutely no fucking thing to do with this argument. None of the parties involved are motivated by "rightness"; they are motivated by profit.
Make sure if you support any effort to fight SCO that it's contingent on ** NO SETTLEMENT ** !!
Idemnified Operating Systems (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to imply that idemnification is something out of the ordinary. After all, acording to Berlind, one should be leveraging one's buying power to get it.
So the question that I get from this is - who offers idemnification as a standard part of their license? Which OSes are "safe"? How "safe"? And were they always like that or is this something they jumped on when SCO began its campaign?
Major flaw in this article (Score:5, Interesting)
He ignores the fact (admitted by SCO) that SCO distributed Linux under the GPL. That's one very good reason why his article is hogwash. Many people already have an SCO license
So despite the author's attempt to sound serious, balanced, objective, responsible, etc: he's just another FUD merchant.
One Possible Logic Trail (Score:4, Interesting)
I think that this disputed paragraph is the foundation upon which SCO is basing 99% of its claims. What I most seriously wonder is, "OK, suppose the judge gives SCO full rights to Unix. But most of the Unix contracts out there are based on an AT&T contract, and AT&T has provided a specific interpretation of a critical paragraph. Can SCO change the interpretation of this particular paragraph, JUST because they now own Unix?"
What I think is that those who obtained those AT&T-type contracts will argue that they are operating under the AT&T interpretation, which they were contractually allowed to do when they signed those contracts!
I do not think that the judge will grant SCO the right to arbitrarily alter the interpretation of the disputed paragraph in those contracts without some sort of advance notice -- and no such notice was given (just lawsuits). The net result is that, for example, IBM may have to STOP moving AIX and Dynamix code into Linux, but that all previously-moved code will be "grandfathered".
For Linux, that net result means that SCO can be ignored, and no indemnification nor insurance need be paid to anyone.
At least he's "only" a zero... (Score:3, Interesting)