decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Australian Linux Group Fights Back -- So Does the World
Thursday, July 24 2003 @ 01:10 AM EDT

As you may haveread, Open Source Victoria has filed a complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, asking it to investigate SCO's activities in light of "unsubstantiated claims and extortive legal threats for money" against possibly hundreds of thousands of Australians: OSV member Con Zymaris said "We take serious issue with The SCO Group's latest ploy, namely that of seeking licence fees from Linux users. As such, we have filed a complaint with the ACCC. We call on any Australian Linux users who feel pressured by SCO's actions to immediately contact the ACCC and file a complaint."> I contacted Con Zymaris to ask him to explain what it all means to those of us who are not Australians and don't know their law.

Here is his reply:
We are an advocacy group and industry cluster, representating around 60 state-based firms and developers who work with Free and Open Source Software. We have watched with interest the legal battle between The SCO Group and IBM. However, by making the statements that SCO made earlier this week, they have opened the battle and are attacking the 50 million users of Linux worldwide. We feel impelled to now act.

We have taken this step because, by our understanding, The SCO Group's latest action may be illegal under Australian Trade Practices Law. It is our understanding that SCO have indicated that they will be pressuring Linux users for payment of a licence. We believe this is a "misrepresentation of need", where an organisation is suggesting that people must make payments that in fact they are not obligated to. This may be illegal in Australia, and in other countries.

At no stage have SCO proven any of their claims. These claims remain totally unsubstantiated. Furthermore, SCO/Caldera have spent the past 9 years helping Linux acquire the features they now claim were purloined from SCO's IP base. Further, they have been, and continue to ship their Linux code (which includes the putative SCO IP) under the GPL, which explicitly precludes SCO from asking for the licence fees they are seeking. By not abiding by the GPL, they are in fact breaking worldwide Copyright Law, and are liable to suits from all parties who have contributed to the Linux kernel over the years.

Excerpts from the GPL which are pertinent.

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

Due to the fact that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, which is an industry and regulatory watchdog ( http://www.accc.gov.au/ ) is in the process of investigating our complaint, we cannot pre-empt any of their findings; however, we believe there is a case to be made under Section 52 and Section 53 of the Australian Federal Trade Practices Act.

To whit:

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 52 -- Misleading or deceptive conduct

(1) A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 - SECT 53 - False or misleading representations

A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connexion with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services: ...

(f) make a false or misleading representation concerning the need for any goods or services; ...

He ends by suggesting that all Linux users wherever they are "approach their own countries' industry and consumer watchdogs with a similar complaint if they feel that The SCO Group is using extortive legal threats to demand money to which they have no proven claim."

Those were not the only fighting words today. Take a look at this compilation on Slashdot, including some skeptical reactions from SCO's customers.

What About Germany?

MozillaQuest has some information on that. And take a look at SCO Germany's site. Not a whisper about licenses there. Or anything else. Not even the hilarious "Relax. Worry Free Software" logo.

About Those Copyrights

The article in MozillaQuest on copyright claims contains some other nuggets. First, that SGI has copyright in NUMA, and that it was SGI that contributed NUMA to Linux, and second, that the 80 lines of code that they have been showing analysts were not official Linux kernel code. They came from "an IHV (independent hardware vendor) rather than code from kernel.org -- the official Linux kernel code." Finally, the article quotes IBM's spokesman Trink Guarino as saying:

IBM owns the copyrights for the work we've done in AIX, JFS, RCU and the code that takes advantage of NUMA hardware.
And In The US

And Eben Moglen, of the FSF, says the licensing plan would not only be in violation of the GPL, but also completely pointless, and Red Hat agrees:

"You don't need a copyright license from anybody to use any program," he said. "That's like saying you need a copyright license to read a newspaper ... if there's plagiarised material in the New York Times, that doesn't mean that people who buy the New York Times are liable."

A copyright license was required to redistribute software, Moglen said, but Linux distributors would not be able to adopt the SCO license because it would place them in conflict with the GPL.

Linux distributor, Red Hat, for one, had no interest in adopting SCO's license. "We have full confidence in our code, so we don't feel this license is necessary for anybody," Red Hat spokesperson, Leigh Day, said. "It's just another tactic in this battle that they've waged through the media. It's just a distraction," she said.


  


Australian Linux Group Fights Back -- So Does the World | 7 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 24 2003 @ 07:31 AM EDT
I've been searching and searching on the ftc site for any case they've prosecuted similar to this.

There's lots of hits when you search for "unsusbtantiated claims"

but nothing for "fraudulent ownership claims" or "false ownership" "selling something you don't own"

or the new term I learned here "misrepresentation of need"

Is there a word I just never learned for this kind of activity?


Sanjeev

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 24 2003 @ 10:26 AM EDT
I think the word is simply "fraud", Sanjeev ;)
Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 24 2003 @ 10:33 AM EDT
It's also worth noting the statements made in Japan - probably this explains the postponed licensing announcement and the backtracking on McBride's visit to Japan. It will be interesting to see if anyone (besides MS and Sun) give SCO any money; certainly the more high-profile "we ain't paying" statements come out, the more smaller firms will be emboldened.

The point made about the infamous 80 lines in Mozillaquest was something I hadn't fully appreciated. SCO subsequently claimed the copied code was also in the mainline kernel - but in that case, why use an obscure vendor branch as your example? (And why hasn't SCO named or sued the IHV in question? Perhaps it was Sun? ;)


Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 24 2003 @ 10:42 AM EDT
I was looking for an on-point action that ftc had taken so people filling out the complaint page could say "this is identical to that other case you prosecuted and won". If you find / know of one please add it here -

http: //twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBMLawEnforcement http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBMSCOLicensingJustSayNO


Sanjeev

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 24 2003 @ 07:03 PM EDT
I dont want to apear trolling but :
are the US the center of the World ?
Understand me : I love USA but the are one country
in the world. And a possible issue of this crap lawsuit
could not impact on other countries...
So why do we care of it ?
couannette

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 24 2003 @ 08:30 PM EDT
>> US the center of the World ? No, Toronto is the centre of the universe.

IF SCO wins in the US, with the clout that the US possesses over trade and treaty bodies, the impact will be felt all over the world. just look at the European DMCA equivalent and the US State Department sending the US ambassador to 'talk with' the Prime Minister of Peru over Villeneuva's proposed legislation favoring open-source.

If SCO "wins" in the US that will have world-wide impact. And just consider that many kernel contributors may just walk away from Linux if their past work is literally STOLEN by SCO.

Besides, this website belongs to a USian, right?


Sanjeev

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 25 2003 @ 02:30 AM EDT
I think there is another reason why people anywhere could care: the voluntary,
hard work of thousands of people is in danger of being ruined. Their work
benefits the entire world, and in fact GNU/Linux is being used around the globe.
They did this work because they wanted to benefit people all around the world.
They achieved that goal. And they did it for nothing, monetarily. Now, that
body of work, or at least the Linux part of GNU/Linux is being attacked, with
the apparent goal of grabbing the benefits of that labor for the financial
advantage of one, proprietary company that is in competition with GNU/Linux (and
maybe some friends of theirs also in competition with GNU/Linux). If you think
the attack is unjust and unethical, should a human being not care? style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )