Germany Muzzles SCO 349
skyryder12 writes " We have news from Germany. It seems, according to Computerworld, that SCO Group GmbH (SCO's German branch) agreed, on February 18, 2004, to an out-of-court settlement between it and Univention and will refrain from saying in Germany some things it says in the US constantly. There are four things they have agreed not to say in Germany, on pain of a fine of 10,000 euros per offense -- that's about $12,500 USD -- and one thing they can't say unless they present proof within a month of the settlement date. Story at GrokLaw"
Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, the translation turned from saying the above to, SCO may not threaten to sue any linux user, except those who bought a SCO or Caldera distribution... gotta distribute the logical not throughout the statement properly!!!
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Funny)
-
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Informative)
Note that it is not just sue - but "Strafverfolgung"; i.e. a criminal offence reported to the "attorney general" which the "people' bring on, rather than a civil law case.
Dw
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Informative)
The german law implies you may not sue anyone who does not have business with you or interferes with you in some way. Therefore, if SCO tells it will be suing people they have no business with, they are obviously wrong.
Paragraph 263 of the german "Strafgesetzbuch" (criminal code) seems to apply in this case (fraud, making false claims to extract property).
Oh, and the obligatory IANAL.
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:3, Insightful)
Both two customers?
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Informative)
What Univention used against SCO is what the Germans call "Beweislast" (burden of proof). According to German law, the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff. This means SCO cannot, according to German law, make public statements threatening anyone about anything especially if this would undermine the accused (Linux in this case), before the accusations or claims have been proved to be true in a court of law. This is how things should be since it stops alot of unecesarry lawsuits
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think that often fraud is hidden under the terms of free speech. The world if when people make a statment of what they claim is fact where forced to take some responsibility for that statment. If SCO came out and said that "We feel that Linux infringes on our copyright and are going to look into it." I would have not problem. But when they make totaly false statments like, "Millions of lines of our code in in Linux". Then they have gone to far.
Re:Germany has a sense of humor (Score:5, Insightful)
Their customers - it is contract law
Other people - it is general antitrust, slander and copyright law.
That is the distinction and there is nothing funny in it.
You gotta love german (Score:5, Funny)
Die SCO Group...
has got to be good!
Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
They can't say it unless they prove it. You can't destroy anyones reputation just because. First you gotta prove it...
(*) King Diamond
Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Interesting)
And the media loves this stuff. They get to tell/sell simple stories that the uneducated public understands, with a good guy/bad guy, never mind if any of it is true.
Making unproven allegations is one of the most basic tried-and-true PR methods. Don't like someone? Sully their name. Don't matter if it's true.
I would think most Slashdot readers would know better.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Informative)
it seems to me that if the US courts did something like this to a small business man (rather than to Satan), the slashdot crowd would be screaming about Ashcroft and free speech rights.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free speech is fine when we're talking about opinions and facts - it shouldn't protect lying and baseless claims.
Baumi
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
wow, scary.
free speech means I can make all the baseless claims and lie all I want. What I can't do is yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater (the classic example).
If I break the law (through fraud) -- then fine, arrest me, and I'll go through due process, but to simply restrict speech simply because it may be baseless or a lie is ridiculous and scary.
Right now, I'm sitting on the beach typing this and that later today I'm going to take a long drive in my Ferrari.
See, that was a lie! I'm sitting in my cubicle right now! But according to your definition of free speech, I just committed a crime by lying where I am and what I'm doing.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Informative)
Libel (A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation; the act of presenting such material to the public) requires publication. I'm not sure what, if anything, SCO itself has published. Most publications have been interviews with SCOs officers, published by various members of the media.
IMO, BTW IANAL TLA, SCO is also guilty of barratry (The offense of persistently instigating lawsuits, typically groundless ones) as they have filed numerous suits against various groups without providing so much as a shred of tangible evidence (ie, evidence that wasn't refuted within 24 hours).
In short, take those free speech arguments and shove 'em where the sun don't shine. Even free speech has its limitations...
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
Two issues here: even an ACLU liberal like me won't argue that free speech is so absolute as to preclude laws against slander or libel. And most of us would be willing to have limits on threatening speech, although this is more subject to abuse.
The second issue is that "free speech" is very much an American idea. That's not to say that freedom is unknown in Europe, but Europe is far more willing to restrict speech that would (generally) be considered protected in the U.S. Germany, especially, is far more willing to subjugate free speech to social order, as a result of seeing the particular zeal with which certain very bad ideas were formerly so lovingly embraced by German listeners.
I'm referring, of course, to Germany's Nazi past: as a result, Germany law holds social order -- the protection of ideals of democratic government -- to be more important that a right to the exhortation of Nazi "hate speech", including not only speech in favor of Fascism but also Fascism's ugly underpinnings, such as racist and anti-Semitic speech, and minimization of Fascism's consequences, such as Holocaust denial.
Other European nations are also more leery of speech that is too stark a reminder of history, as we saw with France's restriction of eBay's sale of Nazi memorabilia. Britain, too, is less concerned about free speech, but limits speech less through hate-speech laws than through far easier to get judgments against libel and slander.
One of the strongest arguments of free speech advocates in the U.S. is that the best antidote to "bad" speech is not suppression, but instead the "free marketplace of ideas": "bad" speech is supposed to generate counter-arguments against what it advocates, allowing a free people to freely weigh both sides of the question and -- presumably -- end up even more strongly against the "bad" speech. (I keep using scare quotes around "bad" not because I'm a fan of hate speech, but because this argument for free speech presumes that it is up to each listener, and not a government, to determine in his own conscience what speech is "bad".)
I'm inclined to agree with this analysis, but furthermore, I can't see what alternative to it allows a people truly to be free, and I worry that suppression of hate speech in Europe -- and Germany in particular -- is just a tacit acknowledgement that these countries don't really believe that all the demons of their past have truly been put to rest, that they fear that Fascism might again prove irresistibly seductive if allowed to be advocated freely.
But I'm an American, not a European, and I have the luxury of living in a land that has never been touched by Fascism or Communist Statism, where Democracy -- however unevenly applied to minorities or women or the poor -- was at least the ideal to which we pledged ourselves. And of course, the U.S. has not been shy about restricting free speech in its colonial possessions, as a perusal of our laws in the Philippines or Cuba makes clear.
Lest we forget, not only Germany, but Italy, Portugal -- until 1974, and Spain -- until 1977 --, were Fascist, and Eastern Europe -- including East Germany -- languished under Communist Statism just as tyrannical until the 1990s. With that perspective, it's perhaps more understandable that Europeans feel they must -- to paraphrase the U.S. doctrine in Vietnam -- restrict freedom in order to save it.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
I know that views like yours are common in the USA. However, many of us here in Europe look to the USA and don't much difference in the level of "free speech" in either place. True, there are a few laws in a few countries in Europe that go against "free speech" in the strictest sense. But in the USA you have something we don't have so much of - increadable social pressure to conform to what society thinks is right.
For instance, we don't have any type of speech that is publicly ridiculed for being "Un-european". We don't have ridiculous over-reactions like that of your country to the exposure of a woman's breast. And what is "free speech" if your actors cannot give their personal opinions about current events when accepting awards?
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what is "free speech" if your actors cannot give their personal opinions about current events when accepting awards?
The kinds of comments you refer to are the entertainment industry equivalent of flamebait or offtopic digressions (like this one, I'm afraid). Such comments add nothing of value to the debate over current events - does skill at acting really confer any special sagacity about foreign policy? Is the opinion being expressed going to be in any way better informed than a soundbite on the issue from the janitor who sweeps the floors after the awards ceremony is over would be?
Also, such offtopic and inappropriate comments from actors open up a can of worms. Should they be able to make controversial comments that generate lots of backlash against the studios they work for? What if the speech is so controversial it would generally be viewed as insensetive, racist, or hate speech? If some spouting of political comments is good and other types would be bad, what political correctness censoring authority determines how free speech should really be?
Famous people already have a much louder voice for their personal opinion than their expertise on the matters being discussed would merit. They can give interviews, issue press releases, and often testify before congress about topic they have no particular knowledge about. Does having once played a doctor really make someone an expert on health care policy? Newspaper columnists don't go around claiming their political commentaries entitle them to a role in a film, why do entertainers think being good at acting makes their political opinions worth listening to?
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
What many americans don't realise is that there can never be total freedom. In a total free society you would be free to do what you want, and I would be protected from your actions. This is not possible if we want different things. There will always be a tradeoff between your freedom and my protection. We europeans just have a (slightly) different tradeoff.
You and me refere to fictional characters here of course.
Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
For GPL software, you may f.ex. not redistribute binaries without source. This is obviously a restriction of your freedom. But the FSF believes this to be necessary to protect your other freedoms given to you through the GPL. Others (like the BSD people) disagree.
In Europe, you may not say certain things which help fascism. This is obviously a restriction of your freedom. But the European countries believe this to be necessary to protect your other freedoms given to you through democracy. Others (like the USA) obviously disagree.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Denmark, for instance, has the worlds ONLY state funded Nazi radio station. Why? Because the legislation that allows for publicly funded radiostations set out some guidelines that the Nazi station lives up to, namely public service (like news etc).
I have absolutely no problem with that. Why? Because if I want freedom of speech, it should also cover the speech I find deeply appaling! If it doesn't, how can it be free?
And our politicians? Well, they want to ban it. But they can't do it by law, as they haven't broken any laws yet. When they try to remove funding from the station by tweaking the law, they end up closing fifty other stations as well, so that doesn't work.
And damnit - I wish they'd keep their fucking hands of them! Not because I like Nazis - I don't like their view of the world, but because it is so much easier keeping them in check, when they're out in the open and you can ridicule them instead.
Nazis here like marching on various occasions. They're allowed to, it's quite legal. So how do you stop them? By having citizens organize a fundraiser. "We will donate ?150 to various jewish organisations [like holocaust center] for every km the nazis march." That took the air right out of their balloon
THAT'S how you use free speech to impede dangerous speech
IMHO
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Interesting)
First of all, I'm aware that history books in the USA do a bad job at this, but you really should differentiate between fascism and nazism.
Fascism was the system in place in Italy, Nazism was the system in place in Germany and has a lot in common with it, but there are a few very significant differences.
The most important one is evident from Muscolini's opinion about Hitler, he thought the man was obsessed with racial issues.
In fact, the system as the USA has today is very close to fascism, it is a system in which big business runs the country, and where the government acts on their behalf. Traditional fascism comes with a fair amount of nationalism and national pride, and usually (but not by definition) results in expantionalism. At any rate it perfectly matches Muscolini's own definition of fascism.
This very aspect of Nazism is what provokes very strong reactions among jewish people specifically, but also among almost anyone who has lived through it in EUrope, and those who were brought up knowing about what happened.
Both Nazism and Fascism heavily lean on glorifying the past, and use a lot of symbolism in order to keep people from looking at reality.
What was forbidden in France is selling things that have been used in such a way by Nazis speicifcally, interestingly enough, you wont see the same vigorous attempts at suppression with purely fascist things.
When looking at the response to nazism in much of Europe, you have to think back to events on sept. 11 and what emotions it triggered in the USA. multiply it a few 1000 times to get to the scale of what Europe experienced under Nazi rule, and you can also count on emotions being proportionally stronger.
Regarding Germany, laws there are not much different from those in the rest of Europe, tho tend to get implemented more strictly (but hey, that is a german thing to do, they do that with lots more then just those rules and laws)
That for example Mein Kampf is not available in Germany is first of all due to the current copyright holders preventing that (happesn to be the government of bavaria if I'm not mistaken) and not because of it being forbidden by law.
Finally, not allowing 'hate speech' as is the case in many European countries is just putting a slightly different line then is done in the USA. Which line is better is up for debate, but neither have absolute free speech.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't correct, but typical of contemporary US nationalist meme-thinking. The conceptions of free-speech are somewhat different in Europe and the US but if you think "it is very much an American idea " you are in need of an education.
- The idea of free speech originated first in Europe (maybe elsewhere also). Scores of euro philosophers/political thinkers have argued for free speech long before the US existed, including ancient greeks.
- The european provisions you mention are insignificant. There are far more important factors to free speech, such as good public service media and the conditions of political campaigns.
- The worlds oldest freedom of the press-laws are European (the first one was made law in Sweden, which is in Europe last I checked).
In practice, socio-political debate in west-european countries span a much wider range of ideas than that of the US, and is far more critical of government (power in general). That is the main point of free speech.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Regulating what a company can say is just fine. If the shareholders don't like it, they are still perfectly capable of speaking in their capacity as individual citizens.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can the open source developers affected by SCO's statements lay their hands on millions of $s from the Bank of Canada or Deutsche Bank to bolster their case? Free speech isn't free if it costs a fortune in court....
-
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
- The Earth is round
- The Earth revolves around the sun
- Evolution exists
- Free (as in beer)
- There is no proof that Cigarette smoke is linked to higher cancer rates.
A lot of things are taken as "obviously" false until they are proven true.
-Ab
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, arguing that cigarette smoke is linked to higher cancer rates has been proved is specious because the evidence is circumstantial. A good arguer would be able to make the case that the proof is faulty and therefore cigarette smoke is not linked to higher cancer rates.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
They have been barred (as a result of an out-of-court SETTLEMENT) from making unsubstantiated claims that are intended to harm their competitor's business.
Where is the First Amendment violation?
newSCO had an opportunity to back up their claims in court, but instead AGREED to back down, so they could keep up the rhetoric back home.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Say what you want about the RIAA, but at least when they threaten to sue somebody, they follow through on it. I don't see it as that bad a thing to require that when SCO announces they're going to file a lawsuit, they should at least have to do it. Afterall, a victory against just one defendant would legitimize SCO's main claim that they're owed money by everyone who loses Linux. However, if they lose, most of their FUD will be declared something that doesn't stand up in court.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. courts muzzle people as well
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Funny)
Then I have some marvellous snake oil for you, which will cure every known disease. I can let you have some very cheap.
Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's always the counter example to unbridled free speech in the form of the "falsely yelling fire in the theatre" rule.
Free speech rules come with some common sense restrictions, which are that it can be restricted in cases where it is shown to be both false and solely intended to harm others. SCO appears to meet both criteria.
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good to see... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good to see... (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately, it's the large companies in the US that SCO want to target the most. And they have just announced that they've persuaded another bunch of suckers [yahoo.com] to sign up....
Re:Good to see... (Score:3, Interesting)
Probably a marketing stunt to get some free press. BTW, I doubt EV1 is a "fortune 1000 company" (whatever that is).
And check out webhostingtalk.com and EV1 forums for hordes of unhappy people.
Yay! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Enforcement of consumer law under Enterprise Act (Score:5, Interesting)
Enforcement of consumer law under the Enterprise Act [oft.gov.uk]
How does it come? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does it come? (Score:4, Insightful)
In many parts of Europe, it's the opposite. A company, no matter how well respected or large will always have to bow down to the will of the people in the end. This is what's happened as a result, and Germany made the right decision to act.
Re:How does it come? (Score:5, Insightful)
In Europe this hasn't happened yet.
I'm not saying that European politicians are born more honest. They're not.
I do say, however, that here the democratic checks still work. The press, the unions, the other parties _and_ the other countries in the EU will raise a ruckus sky-high at the slightest hint that a politician may be bought or acting against the people's interest.
Maybe more important is that here, to the best of my knowledge, all countries have more than two parties. There is no lack of choice for voting someone else into office, if the current lot does a bad job.
Better yet, most often parties have to form fragile alliances to be anywhere near a majority. You can't take "we're the majority" for granted and do whatever you damn please. (I.e., reward those who paid for your campaign.) Often to get your own Law X voted, you have to secure the support of one or two other parties. Which might imply altering the law so they like it too, or supporting their own Law Y, or whatnot.
Chances are good enough that enough of those will do the populist thing and refuse to support stuff that would piss off their voters. Or want to have it changed so it at least looks good to their voters.
Speaking of fragile alliances: having one or two members in the parliament can (and often does) make _the_ difference between being the alliance leader or having to follow. There's a real competition for Joe Average's vote. You don't want to piss off Joe Average too much.
Re:How does it come? (Score:3, Interesting)
Corporations have the same rights as INDIVIDUALS under U.S. law.
Therefore, the more money an individual has, the more he can influence the judicial system through lobbyists.
Of course I am basing my understanding from a paper I read some time ago, but that did seem to be the gist of it.
Re:How does it come? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How does it come? (Score:5, Informative)
The hysterisis built into the US legal system, "Innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond reasonable doubt" create a small area inbetween "Truth" and "Lies" where both sides can claim victory: SCO says, "No one can prove these claims irefutabley flase" while others say "SCO cannot prove these claims true."
Meanwhile they can make money off the proposition that they may be true, and people would be better off paying them rather than taking a small risk and waiting to see what the full outcome is. Many companies have little to lose if they 'lose' so they take the risk and don't pay. But many companies either have a lot to lose, or don't understand what they'll lose and so it's safer to not risk it and simply pay up.
Many other countries have much stronger versions of what we call 'slander' or 'libel' - even covering free speech. One cannot make a statement which has not already been shown to be true or can be readily verified by any interested parties. Using phrases such as "may" or "could infringe" or "This contains forward looking statements" do not always satisfy the legal requirements to fall under 'free speech' as they do in the US.
Quite frankly, you can simply say that the US system give them as much rope as they want to use before someone sues them, whereas the German courts step in and prevent them from getting much, if any, hanging rope. Handing down a warning, and knowing what the penalties are beforehand both empowers a company and stops them short of duping too many people.
-Adam
Full Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
We have news from Germany. It seems, according to Computerwoche [computerwoche.de], that SCO Group GmbH (SCO's German branch) agreed, on February 18, 2004, to an out-of-court settlement between it and Univention and will refrain from saying in Germany some things it says in the US constantly. There are four things they have agreed not to say in Germany, on pain of a fine of 10,000 euros per offense -- that's about $12,500 USD -- and one thing they can't say unless they present proof within a month of the settlement date.
Details of the settlement from the article:
I asked a couple of others who speak German to make sure this last was an accurate translation, even holding off on the story for half a day, because it still sounds a bit odd. Evidently, they can sue their own customers in Germany if they feel like it. Perhaps others can refine our understanding. The news article also says that they can't allege that proof of copyright violations will be presented soon, unless such proof is presented within a month after the settlement date, in which case, then SCO Group may continue to make that claim publicly.
Thanks primarily to doughnuts_lover, who did the initial translation for us.
Here is a snip from the German, for those who can readily understand it:
Correction on #4 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Full Article Text (Score:5, Informative)
"SCO Group GmbH will henceforth in its business relations, that is, towards customers and users, no longer claim that Linux operating systems contain illegally aquired intellectual property of SCO Unix. The settlement further prohibits SCO from claiming that end users, if they employ Linux, may be held liable for infringement of SCO Intellectual Properties. Further, the claim that Linux is an unauthorized derivate of Unix, is no longer acceptable. Last, but not least, SCO Group GmbH may no longer claim that buyers of Linux operating systems had to fear criminal prosecution, unless the operating system that was bought is SCO Linux or Caldera Linux...
"Henceforth, SCO will also cease to claim publically that proof for the copyright infringement would be presented shortly. Exception: Should this proof be presented within one month after this settlement, then such a claim may further be made publically."
Gagged..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Watching from the sidelines, I'm sometimes disappointed at the trial by media and sensationalist reporting going on in the US. But then I'm not an American so maybe I'm out of touch.
Re:There is no "trial by media" (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly question why judges don't want cameras in their courtrooms. Every word that is said in that courtroom is still going to be talked about too much by the media anyway, so why deny the public the chance to see primary source material instead of leaving the public watching commentators alone?
Fall stock price Fall! (Score:5, Interesting)
Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
S.U.S.E (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:S.U.S.E (Score:3, Interesting)
1. SCO will die soon
2. Linux will not
Re:S.U.S.E (Score:5, Informative)
Gesellschaft fur Software-und Systementwicklung MBH.
Company for software and system development.
But still. it's spelled SUSE.
Re:S.U.S.E (Score:3, Informative)
Still not right: it's SuSE.
This is because in German, nouns are always capitalized, so the full name is Software und System Entwicklung (Software and System Development).
GmbH (Gesellschaft mit beschrankter Haftung) is just German for "Ltd" (sort of).
Good ol' Germans! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good ol' Germans! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good ol' Germans! (Score:5, Insightful)
The lawyers are here because the law is overly complex, ambiguous, and exploitable. In other words, the root of the problem is government. As long as the law is exploitable, there will be a demand to exploit the law. The lawyers are only here to supply the demand.
Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and the US government's solution is to keep producing more and more pie (to continuously expand the scope of government). This is a classic example of government creating problems of which the "solution" requires (guess what) more government. The real solution, of course, is to limit the size of the pie.
Re:Good ol' Germans! (Score:3, Interesting)
The customer is always right? (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO is only allowed to threaten people that actually bought Caldera or SCO linux? Good thing I never bought either then...
Cat Got My Tongue (Score:5, Funny)
4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
Hello, Darl? This is irony calling.
Re:Cat Got My Tongue (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I'd like to take an iron to Darl too...
another good thing is this (Score:5, Informative)
This fifth statement had been left out:
they can't any anymore that their proof will turn up "real soon", unless they actually do it! That should cut down on the crap press-releases...
The court order (Verfuegung) (Score:4, Informative)
Germans... (Score:4, Funny)
Seems like they are doing pretty good (At least recently...and they have a powerful Green Party!)
Cant find it mentioned on the financial news... (Score:4, Informative)
Lets hope its true!
Dupe? (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't LinuxTag do the same thing? Force SCO to stop putting out unfounded claims in Germany?
sue their own customers (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like a cool twisted ploy to make them lose their two remaining german customers.
- cnb
Translations... (Score:5, Informative)
That all-caps line isn't so nice a thing to post (pre-1945 national anthem, forbidden to sing in Germany). The intend is warmly received, the wording is not.
That being said, I'll try myself at a word-by-word translation. (Native German speaker, me...)
"Die SCO Group GmbH wird danach im geschaftlichen Verkehr, also gegenuber Kunden und Anwendern, kunftig nicht mehr behaupten, dass Linux-Betriebssysteme unrechtmaBig erworbenes geistiges Eigentum von SCO Unix beinhalten."
"The SCO Group GmbH will therefore refrain, in future business communications, meaning in communication with customers and users, from claiming that Linux operating systems contain unlawfully purchased intelectual property of SCO Unix."
"Der Vergleich verbietet es SCO ferner zu behaupten, dass Endanwender, wenn sie Linux einsetzen, fur die damit verbundenen Schutzverletzungen der SCO Intellectual Properties haftbar gemacht werden konnen."
"The settlement further forbids SCO to claim that end users, in employing Linux, could be held liable for the implied violations of SCO intelectual property."
"Auch die Behauptung, Linux sei ein nicht autorisiertes Derivat von Unix, ist nicht mehr statthaft."
"Also the claim, Linux were a non-authorized derivative of Unix, is no longer allowed."
"Last, but not least, darf die SCO Group GmbH nicht mehr behaupten, Kaufer von Linux-Betriebssystemen hatten eine Strafverfolgung zu befurchten, es sei denn, es handelte sich bei den gekauften Betriebssystemen um SCO Linux oder Caldera Linux. . . . "
"Last but not least (translator's note: I don't believe this is the official wording), the SCO Group GmbH must no longer claim that purchasers of Linux operating systems must fear lawsuits if the purchased operating systems are not SCO Linux or Caldera Linux..."
"Nach diesem wird SCO auch nicht mehr offentlich behaupten, Beweise fur die Urheberrechtsverletzung wurden demnachst vorgelegt."
"After this, SCO will no longer claim in public that proof for the copyright infringement will be presented shortly."
"Ausnahme: Sollten diese Beweise innerhalb eines Monats nach diesem Vergleich vorgelegt werden, kann die SCO Group GmbH solch eine Behauptung weiter veroffentlichen."
"Exception: Should these proofs be presented within one month after this settlement, the SCO Group GmbH may continue to publish such a claim."
Re:Translations... (Score:3, Informative)
"[...] the SCO Group GmbH must no longer claim that purchasers of Linux operating systems must fear lawsuits if the purchased operating systems are not SCO Linux or Caldera Linux..."
Since this bit has been the most controversial one, I believe you should be careful about doing any boolean arithmetic with it. The negations in the original are different:
"SCO Group GmbH must no longer claim that purchasers of Linux operating systems must fear lawsuits, unless the operating system that was
What exactly.. (Score:4, Interesting)
If I am wrong, someone please help clarify.
SCO has sold a license! (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote: "LINDON, Utah, March 1
EV1 used to be Rackshack + MS Connection (Score:4, Informative)
They used to use primarily Red Hat based systems but have begun pushing MicroSoft systems recently [microsoft.com]. They still have a ton of Linux systems, but they also seem to want to court MS. I suspect the tin-hat crowd might see some type of causal link between that and the fact that EV1 is now a SCO licensee.
Muzzling SCO is irrelevant at this point (Score:5, Interesting)
So telling SCO they have to shup up now instead of six months ago doesn't appear to be doing much that hasn't already happened.
The real question is why Darl has felt it necessary to deprive us of his rather unique insights into intellectual property ownership.
The court of judge subjectstorm (Score:5, Funny)
JS: mmm . .
person: judge storm? shouldn't we correct them?
JS: no . . no, i'm going to allow this one.
person: but-
JS: SILENCE! my position is unassailable. now bring me a goblet of cheese and all 25 episodes of "Berserk". i need to do some thinking on more important matters . . . such as how that CAN'T be the LAST episode, can it?!?!? Griffith, you BASTARD!!!
I think its about time... (Score:3, Informative)
Finally SCO has sold one of their licenses to a commercial Linux user. Here is the press release [yahoo.com]
The buyer is Everyones servers, a web hoster. I wonder why This guy [ev1servers.net] is doing this?
Additional banned words.. (Score:3, Funny)
D*ryl McBr*de
Ly*ng Scumf*cks
S*mpr*ni
This proves it (Score:5, Insightful)
original injunction (Score:5, Informative)
Der Antragsgegnerin wird [...] verboten, im geschaeftlichen Verkehr die Behauptung zu verbreiten, dass LINUX-Betriebssysteme unrechtmaessig erworbenes Eigentum von SCO UNIX beinhalten und/oder dass Endanwender, die LINUX einsetzen, fuer die damit verbundenen Schutzrechtsverletzungen der SCO Intellectual Properties haftbar gemacht werden koennen.
I try to translate, but beware my english (maybe someone can do a better job on this):
[SCO Group GmbH] must not spread the assertion that linux operating systems contain unlawfully obtained property of SCO UNIX and/or that end users could get hold responsible for implicated intellectual property infringement implicated by using linux.
Thanks to LEO [leo.org]
German to English? (Score:5, Funny)
"Die SCO Group"
When I started to read the German news report, I didn't go into German mode, and was throughly entertained to read that a news organization was saying to SCO "Die." But it was just saying "The SCO..." Oh well.
Dear SCO (Score:5, Funny)
You're null unt void.
Signed,
Germany
You learn something every day... (Score:4, Funny)
Contacting SCO's European Office (Score:5, Informative)
EUROPEAN HEADQUARTERS
The Santa Cruz Operation, Ltd.
Croxley Business Park, Hatters Lane
Watford WD1 8YN, United Kingdom
TEL: +44(0) 1923-816344
FAX: +44(0) 1923-813808
E-MAIL: info@sco.com
It would probably do no good but, well, you never know.
According to German Law (Score:5, Informative)
Common sense in Germany (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there a way to send this to the judge in Utah? It might make this a short case.
What does it matter? It's the internet! (Score:3, Insightful)
thought experiment... (Score:5, Funny)
Rule 2) The settlement also forbids SCO from claiming that if end users are running Linux they might be liable for breaches of SCO's intellectual property.
Rule 3) Also they cannot say that Linux is an unauthorized derivative of Unix.
Rule 4) Finally SCO Group GmbH is prohibited to threaten to sue Linux users unless they bought SCO Linux or Caldera Linux.
Fact 1: SCO Group GmbH get's fined EUR 10,000 if they break Rules 1 through 4.
Fact 2: Darl mcwhatever is CEO of SCO.
Theorem 1: SCO Group GmbH is a branch of SCO group and falls directly under SCO group.
extrapolation 1: If Theorem 1 holds then Darl mcwhatever is part of SCO Group GmbH.
Conclusion: If extrapolation 1 holds then SCO Group GmbH gets fined EUR 10.000 everytime Darl mcwhatever says or does anything covered by rules 1 through 4.
Does this mean that every SCO press release now costs them an additional EUR 10.000?
What about the sco.com website? is that a repeat offense every time someone presses refresh?
Re:DEUTSCHLAND! (Score:4, Insightful)
Using that phrase is more than a little insensitive. In fact, using it in Germany can get you in about as much trouble as SCO can after this.
About the german anthem... (Score:3, Informative)
DEUTSCHLAND DEUTSCHLAND Ueber Alles!
Using that phrase is more than a little insensitive. In fact, using it in Germany can get you in about as much trouble as SCO can after this.
As far as I know that is still part of the official anthem. It is common misconception that it means that Germany's superior to everybody, it actually means that German national unity should come before the petty local and personal interests (it was composed back in other times). Alles means everything, everybody is alle.
Thi
Re:DEUTSCHLAND! (Score:4, Informative)
here.. enlightment.. [brandenburghistorica.com]
Re:DEUTSCHLAND! (Score:3, Informative)
You are celebrating this event with a song mostly forbidden in Germany [brandenburghistorica.com].
Re:Another idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I should fine you 10 000 Euros for having to tell you this after it has been mentioned in every fscking SCO story. Besides, I would think a story relating to a case that threatens Free and open source software would be considered "news" on a site full of FOSS fans.
Again, you're free to uncheck "Caldera" whenever you want. No more SCO. Enjoy.
In conclusion... speak for yourself.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO Signs Intellectual Property License Agreement with Leading Dedicated Server Provider [yahoo.com]
Makes me sick.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Funny)
"Germany Nuzzles SCO"
I think it's time I went home.
Tom.