FSF Subpoenaed by SCO 432
An anonymous reader writes "Bradley M. Kuhn on the FSF website: Late last year, we were subpoenaed by SCO as part of the ongoing dispute
between SCO and IBM. Today, we made that
subpoena available on our website. This is a broad subpoena that
effectively asks for every single document about the GPL and enforcement
of the GPL since 1999. They also demand every document and email that we
have exchanged with Linus Torvalds, IBM, and other players in the
community. In many cases, they are asking for information that is
confidential communication between us and our lawyers, or between us and
our contributors."
In many cases, (Score:4, Interesting)
> between us and our lawyers, or between us and our contributors."
See JYA at Cryptome for how to deal with this sort of thing.
Re:In many cases, (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is that special in the eyes of the law? (seriously - the blurb does not make it clear) Attorney-client confidentiality, sure. Medical professional confidentiality, fine. Developer-packager confidentiality? I don't think so. Unless these are confidential for some other reason. Stamping "confidential" on it, doesn't make it confidential. That's kind of the point of subpoenas.
Or am I missing something?
Re:In many cases, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:In many cases, (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but hiring a lawyer does. You just have to make sure you have more lawyers than the other side does.
Re:In many cases, (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In many cases, (Score:3, Insightful)
Federal Standard for Discovery (Score:4, Informative)
This is correct, but the standard is very broad. This action is in Federal Court, and is therefore governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). FRCP Rule 26(b)(1) [lexisnexis.com] provides:
FRCP Rule 26(b)(1) [lexisnexis.com] (emphasis added). The portion of FRCP 26(b)(1) emphasized above is very important. The requested information need not be admissible; it only has to be "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
Further, under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence [cornell.edu], "relevant evidence" is defined very broadly as follows:
FRE Rule 401 [cornell.edu] (emphasis added).
Reply:In many cases, it is a fishing trip ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Just me, from when I started my archives in 1987, for email and personal/work files (with some whoops redundancy).... I have a little over 10G [lots of pictures, some text, a few corrupt files, and I know there must be a couple ancient MS-DOS and/or CP/M viruses entombed for posterity].
If they want everything from FSF/GNU/RMS/EmployeeA-z/ContactA-Z/.... They could be fishing for years, and catch a few interesting zip-null files for all their efforts. Those folks at SCO must be getting sustenance from a deep-pockets source for these fishing expeditions, because they are wasting everyone's time
Maybe that is it, they are trying to bankrupt the FSF foundation by having everyone working at the FSF for nothing and costing time and money
I will continue to make ($20-$200) donations to FSF and others, but I will continue to keep it all hand2hand without receipts or tax benefits. I don't got time or money for SCO to get me or maybe the US software Gestapo that went after that nice Georgia Cracker lady that protects the USA Constitution, Democracy, and voting
I may be paranoid, but I can see it coming
"Reality is a self-induced hallucination." [Anyone know who owns this line?]
OldHawk777
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
2) cost
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we search that computer for kiddie porn? You have nothing to hide, right? Call us in a month to see if our technicians are done searching, and where you can pick up your computer.
Have you ever been drunk? Can we take your liver so we can check?
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh. Yes, sure. Why not?
Ok. Hope you don't mind being without a computer for an indefinite period of time. Don't worry -- we'll get to it shortly. The guys down at the lab say they're only 3 months behind in data analysis at the moment.
Oh, and we'd like to check your tax records for the past 7 years. Please provide all receipts that are applicable during that time period. If you donated any items to charity and claimed that as a deduction, you will need to provide proof of your cost basis as well as proof of value of the item at the time you donated it.
Oh, I'm sure you didn't do anything wrong. We just like to check from time to time. I do hope this doesn't inconvienece you. Of course, if you can't provide this information, then I'm afraid some penalties may apply...
Figured it out yet? It's not about having something to hide -- it's about wasting other people's time and money for no good reason.
In the case of police work, it's known as a fishing expedition -- you have no idea what the hell you're looking for, but everyone breaks the law sooner or later.
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:4, Interesting)
They alway tell someone "show us this" and "Show us that".
this is because you can claim that they tampered it, in an effort to harm/collect more/frame you/whatever.
I know this because both my sisters are acocuntants and they've been taught this at the University.
I do not know what the situation is with the police, however, but i assume that similar reasoning would apply.
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they have a reason, your aproval in the matter won't count. When they ask, they are either trying to get into your underware draw or trying to find a reason they don't yet have to get you introuble.
I have found that when I follow someone inn the car, given enough time they will do somethign that is questionably not legal. Stuff like not using your turn signal far enough away from your turn. And given enough time to look thru you stuff, I can
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, at least here, some police are more worried about finding *someone* to pin the crime on, rather than finding the actual criminal.
In that vein, before you do anything, speak to my lawyer first. *PERIOD*
If it appears as though you mean no harm, then I'll think about co-operating. More likely, you'll get exactly what the constitution allows and absolutly nothing more.
There are many who are in prison innocently who had their crime pinned on them by police who simply wanted a conviction rather than a conviction of the *right* person. Refusing the be questioned without an attorney, refusing searches and siezures without a properly executed warrant etc are the first steps to protecting yourself against these problems.
Sure, you're right, it's probably not the most polite and best approach, but when my freedom and reputation are at stake and I'm not sure of the character of those on the other side, that is just the way it must be to afford me the protection I require.
Just by 0.02 cents.
Cheers,
Greg
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the American legal system seems to enjoy extending its power abroad, so it's only fair that the rest of us have some say.
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:3, Funny)
P:Excuse me sir, we have reason to believe an axe murderer has broken into your house, can we check your attic? There's something that appears to be blood dripping out of your awnings.
You: SCREW YOU PIGS GET A WARRENT OR BLOW ME
Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)
I spent quite a bit of time in Ireland, for example. The reason why European countries tend to have fewer civil liberties is because their citizens honestly believe they don't need them. Americans were taught from the founding of their country to be suspicious of authority.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
Fewer civil liberties?
Liberties must come with responsibility. I don't deem people in general responsible enough to carry loaded guns. I deem it civil responsibility to aid the police in solving the crimes. If it means that I'll let them search my apartment to eliminate me as a suspect, go ahead.
I for one have never quite understood your paranoia about the government.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
And you meet a few of the wrong kind
But... (Score:5, Insightful)
We are paranoid about our government because it commands enormous resources that are under the purview of individuals that are sometimes not entirely trustworthy (compare to your concern about people being responsible enough to carry loaded guns). Our goverment hides and outright falsifies information about a myriad of things that could be enormously beneficial to its citizens and the world at large because it is beneficial to its somewhat shady, ill-defined, perhaps amoral goals.
Do you honestly believe any governmental system can be much different?
American suggests US govt - no better than Sadam's (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you honestly believe all governmental systems are the same?
So you are saying that all governmental systems are the same? So the US and its poodles have replaced one "shady", "perhaps amoral" government in IRAQ with another one, that's no better?
Next you'll be saying that the torture and rape perpetrated by Sadam's thugs is being continued by the US.
You'll be saying that the US govt is the same as the Nazis with it's concentration
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now couple that with stories of cops pinning drugs on undesirables, police brutality, sending innocent people to jail for crimes they didn't commit, politicians serving their own interests, corrupt judges, etc, etc, etc.....yes, we have an inate distrust of government, why do you ask?
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who trust government and distrust people have a serious problem... they don't realize government is just a bunch of regular people doing jobs - some well, some not so well, just like anywhere else.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
that's because you live under a government that can actually be trusted.
i didn't use to understand americans either, then i moved here. now i'm amazed they aren't even more paranoid and distrustful of the corrupt egomaniacal idiots they've got running the place. of course, their paranoia and fear don't actually do anything to help the situation, but at least i can understand the impulse.
Re:Yes. (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, have never quite understood why a person would blindly trust a faction of complete strangers who go to work every morning to make decisions on how you should live your life.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand many goverment branches are distruste
I think you're mostly mixing that up with... (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, the Patriot Act and the whole Guantanamo Bay thing makes me doubt your rights are that good, should you try to exercise them. Of course, rights don't apply to people that we suspect the rights don't apply to. Try figuring that one out. And after seeing the recent events in Iraq, ths US should shut the fuck up about their civil liberties(*). Or maybe you really don't understand how that looks to the rest of the world?
(*) not applicable to Iraqis, foreigners in general, allies, non-US citizens, muslims, suspected terrorists et al. Any more you want to piss off?
In the Cold War, we needed the US. 9/11 could have brought us together. But I dare say that I don't think the US and Europe has ever stood further apart since WWII. On a political level, it hasn't come about yet. Ask the people.
Ask them about how they feel about the US, about going to war over WMDs that don't exist (The EU thought so too, but we didn't start a war over a belief). Ask the people of your allies if they're proud to have helped you conquer Iraq so you can torture your prisoners like Saddam did.
The US is coming across as a "holier than thou" nation, that in the end is just another thug (admittingly, like most other nations...) Keep it up, and you'll come off looking as the bitch in "Cruel Intentions". I haven't seen a fraction of the humility I'd expect after getting caught with your pants down.
Kjella
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Insightful)
I spent quite a bit of time in Ireland, for example. The reason why European countries tend to have fewer civil liberties is because their citizens honestly believe they don't need them. Americans were taught from the founding of their country to be suspicious of authority.
Yes, yes, keep stroking that ego. I can't believe you are saying this with a straight face. Look how quickly and easily the PATRIOT act got through. For all your "don'
Re:Nothing to hide? (Score:3, Insightful)
Privacy has value (Score:4, Insightful)
That mentality really pisses me off. Just because YOU don't value privacy, and just because YOU don't value the confidentiality of business communications, doesn't mean NOBODY does.
Should nudists pass laws requiring everyone to be naked when the weather is nice?
Laws protecting privacy were created to benefit those of us who DO value it. If you don't value privacy, you can post all your information on the web for all I care. But don't expect me to.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
St. Ignucius (Score:5, Funny)
Re:St. Ignucius (Score:5, Funny)
St. Ignucius of nigeria (Score:3, Funny)
I'm surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm surprised? (Score:5, Funny)
print all the results on 3x5 notecards, in 7 pt font. in binary. naw, binary would be too easy to scan and convert to digital with OCR. make it some crazy bubble letter font. any resulting images convert to ascii art. any froogle results, purchase them and have the sent Cost on Delivery to SCO Headquarters. Which by now is probably the backseat of a Pinto, about to blow up because they shut the door too hard.
Re:I'm surprised? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly, and everyone knows it too. Their stock price is just about the same level as when this whole thing got started.
I would bet the judge isn't too happy about all of this either, as his/her case load is probably heavy.
If I was a betting man, the more stunts SCO pulls like this, the better the chances of this getting thrown out with extreme predjudice.
Stock price was $1 before SCO started lawsuit (Score:5, Informative)
Well, maybe. Depends on how you look at it.
Here's a table of SCOX stock price, sampled once per month. It starts with Caldera (the former company name) going public during the height of the NASDAQ bubble in March 2000.
SCOX: Historical Prices for SCO Group, Inc.
Some key dates and prices:
2002-07 $1.04 Darl McBride joins SCO
2003-01 $1.35 SCO makes anti-Linux noises
2003-03 $2.88 SCO files lawsuit against IBM
2003-10 $22.29 SCOX hits high
2004-05 $4.78 SCOX right now, 2004-05-20
So SCOX is still up a bunch from when McBride started the anti-Linux strategy. I consider the base price to be $1.50, and SCOX is still trading at 300% of that base price.
In my opinion, the products-and-services side of SCO is worthless, and their only viable business is this lawsuit. And the lawsuit is getting less viable every month.
Re:Stock price was $1 before SCO started lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
SCOX: Historical Prices for SCO Group Inc [yahoo.com]
Overburden them (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Overburden them (Score:5, Insightful)
DON'T.
First of all, we can win this without being as low as SCO, and
Second, they'll use the volume of information returned as a reason to stall the proceedings so they can have their legal team "go over the evidence"
Re:Overburden them (Score:4, Funny)
Then on the way over there, drop it, so all the pages go flying and put them all back together out of order.
Re:Overburden them (Score:5, Interesting)
I understand from my attorney friends that giving people a zillion documents is known as `papering them over'. A prosecutor of my acquantance tells me that well-designed subpoenas try to avoid the situation where you end up with 23 pallet loads of paper.
What that says to me is that SCO's lawyers have specifically asked to be papered over, so as to have lots more billable hours for the time spent reading all the irrelevant paperwork.
It's possible, in fact, that they'll bill for 500 hours of reading these papers when they don't bother to read any of it at all; how would SCO prove that they didn't do it?
Re:Overburden them (Score:3, Interesting)
While SCO's lawyers may be looking to increase billable hours, methinks it's more of a delay tactic and fishing expedition.
Re:Overburden them (Score:4, Funny)
and they couldn't figure it out. After all, a tarball is a concatenated file!
It's from last year! (Score:5, Informative)
This is online as a historical document, not as a new summons. Complience with it is now a moot point (unless there was something really freaky going on that we're not aware of), given they were due by 21st Nov 2003.
Non issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Why, preytell, have there been no petitions to have SCOs lawyers disbarred yet?
Re:Non issue (Score:5, Informative)
So, when subpoea'ing, you ask for every document the other guys has. Then your lawyer and his lawyer agree on what is confidential, or if they can't agree, the judge decides (I am told judges despise litigants who can't come to agreements on that sort of stuff).
sPh
Re:Non issue (Score:5, Funny)
THIS DOCUMENT OFFICIALLY
-------DOES NOT EXIST-------
See here [insightbb.com] for a scanned image of the impression.
I have yet to see it held up in court, but any time I print a document I don't want to have to worry about, I smack it with the stamp and put it in a file drawer.
I keep it right next to my What the *#*$# were you thinking? rubber stamp that I had custom made. That one seems to be getting an awful lot of use recently...
Re:Non issue (Score:3, Interesting)
My "What the *#*$ were you thinking?" stamp was purchased back when I was part of the management team that processes individual awards for superior performance. We used to get award applications stating things like "John Smith came to work *every* day this week and was *on time* every single day. I think he deserves a $1000 award for his stellar performance." That's really not much of an exageration, either. Now I use it when revi
Re:Non issue (Score:3, Informative)
Legality, please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, what exactly is their argument? Is it still that Linux contains SCO code? How would documents about "enforcement of the GPL" prove existence of SCO code?
Re:Legality, please? (Score:3, Funny)
<Darth McBride> I will make it legal. </Darth McBride>
Re:Legality, please? (Score:5, Informative)
It's pretty common for requests like this to be super-broad. Plaintiff: give us everything. Subpoenee: we give you nothing. Plaintiff: okay, how bout half? Subpoenee: leave us alone and we'll give you 40%.
So to a certain extent, it's standard lawyerly practice. However, it's the kind of thing judges tire of quickly if taken too far: "fishing expedition" is what it's called.
Furthermore, what exactly is their argument? Is it still that Linux contains SCO code? How would documents about "enforcement of the GPL" prove existence of SCO code?
SCO must prove not only that their IP was infringed, but also that the infringement was malicious: i.e. harmful and intentional. What they'd like to get out of these documents is a picture of IBM plotting in dark rooms with dirty GNU hippies to destroy SCO's proprietary Unix business by stealing source code and selectively litigating with the GPL. (but IANAL either)
Re:Legality, please? (Score:5, Funny)
Subpoenee: we give you nothing.
Plaintiff: okay, how bout half?
Subpoenee: we'll give you everything RMS has said about software licensing.
Plaintiff: uh...
Subpoenee: and everything he's said to women at cons.
Plaintiff: got a court date, talk to you later. Subpoenee: and a recording of the song.
Subpoenee: Hello?
I just read this too! (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:I just read this too! (Score:3, Funny)
At the end of the case, there were like 2 or 3 BSD files that had to be rewritten. At the end (rumor has it), the case was settled in a hurry because the judge pointed out that there was more (unattributed) Berkeley-infringing code in AT&T Unix than AT
here's what to do... (Score:5, Funny)
If all else fails, claim that you cannot provide the documents because it is a matter of national security.
2003 was a very good year for learning new stonewalling techniques...
Re:here's what to do... (Score:5, Funny)
Tell the JUDGE that you have been required because of an ongoing investigation that is SECRET because of the patriot act... that you can't fork over the data.
You can't actually tell him about the trial because it is SECRET.
And he can't find out if it really exists... because it is SECRET.
Get them caught in a big 'ol catch 22 re: the secrecy bs of the patriot act.
Past the deadline? (Score:2, Interesting)
sPh
Re:Past the deadline? (Score:5, Insightful)
agendas maybe. not all agendas are bad.
New docs out. (Score:5, Informative)
Related docs which could make the subpoena irrelevant: Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintoff IBM's Memorandum In Support of its Cross-Motion for Partial Summary Judgement on its claim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement [groklaw.net] (phew).
Teaser. (Score:5, Informative)
SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus and the other kernel hackers have not assigned kernel copyrights to the FSF. Hence, they have no standing to enforce it one way or the other.
Someone on Groklaw put it something like this: I'm a landlord. I go into BusinessDepot and buy a stack of generic lease agreements. A tenant of mine is in a dispute with me, and blames BusinessDepot for "selectively" enforcing the generic lease agreement, and subpoenas them for all correspondence regarding that lease agreement.
Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
This, of course, being only one of the many things SCOG doesn't understand about the GPL.
Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)
You see it here. You also see it in US foreign policy - Bush, et al., seem to believe it's not pos
Obvious Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Its pretty obvious what SCO's trying to do here. This had one of two objectives:
Confidential? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Confidential? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Now That's A Good Question! (Score:4, Funny)
Support the FSF! (Score:5, Informative)
Now is the time to support the FSF, so they can fight this thing. It'd be awful if they had to give out private emails and other communication.
Become a member of the FSF [fsf.org] and support them financially. (I am already a member). You can also send anonymous donations, or buy something from GNU Press [gnupress.org].
Support the FSF! (Score:3, Informative)
Haha (Score:5, Funny)
Scope of the subpoena (Score:5, Insightful)
They are essentially asking for *anything* that might be related to the GPL, the companies that use it, people that write under it, enforcement, etc, including written communications, memo, documentation, etc.
but (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM files for Summary Judgment! (Score:5, Informative)
IBM is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U. C. 9 2201 that IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of, or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO' s purported copyrights in UNIX are invalid and unenforceable.
The docs are just starting to get up but you can follow the discussion on the Yahoo SCOX message board. [yahoo.com]
Relevance for AutoZone (Score:3, Informative)
Regardless of what kind of image SCO tried to paint in their press releases, the lawsuit against AutoZone appeared to be about AutoZone using other software actually belonging to SCO on a Linux host, not about AutoZone using Linux. If so, the outcome in the I
Save your time... (Score:5, Funny)
Dear FSF,
All your documents are belong to us. Here's 30 bucks to cover your copying costs (in case you didn't get that this is a big "fuck you", let us clarify that for you - "FUCK YOU"). Toodle-oo!
Yours truly,
Your buddies at Dewey, Stickham and Howe
IBM filed for Summary judgement. yesterday (Score:5, Informative)
SCO is screwed by their own admission
Quote
SCO has advised the court that it has provided complete and detailed responses to the Court's orders. If that is true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has no evidence of IBM's alledged infringement (as SCO has adduced none). If it is not true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has not only defied two orders of the Court, but it has also falsely certified that it has provided complete, detailed and thorough answers to IBM's interrogatories and the Court's orders. Either way, the Court should forthwith enter summary judgment in favor of IBM.
Re:Reference, please (Score:3, Informative)
Harassment (Score:3, Interesting)
For many individuals and companies the cost of complying to such a demand is excessive, the threat of such might be enough to settle a case.
What does the FSF have to do with it? (Score:4, Insightful)
To whom it may concern... (Score:5, Funny)
As an alternative, they could just send backup tapes of the hard drives off of every server which FSF earns, and let Boies and company figure out how to extract the data. Extra points for using an obscure/obsolete tape format.
Re:To whom it may concern... (Score:4, Funny)
SCO Funds FSF! (Score:3, Interesting)
Going off a standard schedule for copy costs and associated labor ("reasonable") would still be an awful lot of money since we're talking likely hundreds of thousands of documents here, but probably more money than FSF would actually need to produce the documents. If an accounting is required of billable hours for those getting the docs together, hire OSS programmers who could use some extra cash. Therefore, this could in the end be a large donation by SCO to the FSF and OSS programmers.
I believe.. (Score:3, Funny)
"These are not the documents you're looking for. Move along."
Too Much Data Might be what they want (Score:4, Interesting)
Aside from the question of who eventually will get that data ie invisible backers, they seem to be abusing the trial as a way to get press not justice.
Whatever intelligence they can collect for their backers is probably gravy, and if they can gain a delay based on its volume that must suit them fine.
Besides when you know there won't be proof you can use its easy to disregard stacks of paper.
Perhaps they could hire the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution to make grand pronouncements without the burden of the facts.
If the FSF isn't worried (Score:5, Informative)
Other lawyers who are ignorant of the law, seem to irritate him somewhat. I don't blame him. But given that tidbit of knowledge, just imagine how he feels about the garbage SCO is throwing around.
I am sure that if it has not done so already, the FSF will respond decisively in an ethical and legal manner, and certainly nothing substantial will ever come of SCO's whining.
On the importance of GPL and FSF (Score:4, Interesting)
In addition to answering and/or disputing the subpoena, we must also educate the community about why it is that Linux was attacked and GNU was not. For more than a decade, FSF has urged projects to build a process whereby the legal assembly of the software is as sound as the software development itself. Many Free Software developers saw the copyright assignment process used for most GNU components as a nuisance, but we arduously designed and redesigned the process to remove the onerousness. Now the SCO fiasco has shown the community the resilience and complete certainty that a good legal assembly process can create. (SCO, after all, eventually dropped their claims against GNU as a whole and focused on the Linux project which, for all its wonderful technical achievements, has a rather loose legal assembly process.)
Re:Damn those people (Score:3, Informative)
SCO is making a last grasp for anything.
The subpoena was filed last year. It's not a sudden "Hail Mary".
btw, fp!
At least you don't fail that.
Re:Enjoy the legal process (Score:5, Insightful)
The ONLY organization who follows best practices as I can tell, proprietary or open-source, is GNU.
I mean, honestly, in how many businesses do you think lawyers review code written by internal employees to verify that the code they include is original. How might one validate that, anyway? If someone is copying from a private archive, it would be impossible to tell, because it's private.
Anyway, open-source in general is the best about this, because the source code is available for third-party examination. So, if you feel someone might be infringeing on you, no need for lawyers or subpeonas, just check the code from the website!
With proprietary software, if someone is infringing, you have to subpoena the source code just to verify it, and you wind up with significant amounts of egg on your face if you are wrong.
Re:subpeona law is fucked up (Score:3, Informative)
Ignore it, refuse to comply, or not deliver everything that is stated in the document, you can simply go to jail.
Very easy!
But seriously, IANAL, but I've wanted to play one on TV...
You can however get your lawyers to get a judge to redefine the scope of what they are asking for. In this case, it might be possible to refuse sending them emails or letters between their lawyers based on client confidentuality.
Even then it can get sticky.
(lessons learned from a former employer)
-Goran
Re:They mentioned a $30 check... (Score:3, Insightful)
the licensing fees for the postal service.
I prefer the word stamps, it's shorter...
RTFM, STFW (Score:3, Funny)
SCO: PLEEZ SenD MEE a11 1Nf0 YOU HAvE ON C I waNT to HAXXOR
FSF: RTFM, STFW, FU, HAND.
Re:Also subpoened: (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't it illegal to ask for documents you know do not exist?