|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 12:43 PM EDT |
| SCO is going a complete novel way of copyright enforcement... Even the RIAA is
targeting the distributors instead of the listeners. I sincerely wonder what a
judge would say about the situation.
I am glad I downloaded the 2.4.13 kernel source from their ftp site so that I
can still run and distribute a GPLed Linux.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
| possible scenario:
SCO thinking: hm, IBM does not let me bully him, Redhat does not let me bully
him... let's bully the end users
Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
| hm, just to elaborate a bit:
I already sued IBM.
Redhat sued me.
I can't sue SUSE because they are not in Utah, and they would want to move the
case to Germany, where I already received a preliminary injunction preventing me
slandering Linux distributors without putting up some proof.
There are no other cash-cows who remain (no big Linux distributors). Ok, let's
proceed to end users.
Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:15 PM EDT |
| After listening to the call, I came to the conclusion that this is not about 1
or 8 lines of code, but is in fact open warfare on the nature of Open Source and
the GPL.
mike
Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:16 PM EDT |
| The german site is back up.
I can't tell if the threats are on this site
http://www.sco.de
Maybe they've decided to completely go for broke, to try to shake some money
loose to rig the next earnings report?
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
| Oh and just one more thing, now not from SCO's perspective.
I thought even RIAA and MPAA sued only distributors of illegal content (those
who share their MP3s and movie files), but not those who only download it,
because downloading is not illegal in itself.
Why does SCO believe, that they can succeed where MPAA and RIAA could not?
Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:18 PM EDT |
All I can say is LET THEM TRY. They may have Boies, but I have the worlds best
researcher (and that pesky little truth thing) on my side. Go GROKLAW!
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Joe Linux
User[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
| The quarter's already closed, though not reported yet.
Insiders probably can't really trade until the results are reported, which
should be about August 14th.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:31 PM EDT |
Sanjeev, On the German site there's no mention of the license scam. I'll check
again tomorrow as the announcement came after offices in Germany closed.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:36 PM EDT |
| The only mentions about Linux on the webpage is the following:
The 2003/1 newsletter still talks about SCO Linux 4.0 building on
UnitedLinux.
http://www.sco.de/newsletter/0103.p
df
The UNIXWare 7.1.3 product description page mentioning ability to run Linux
programs via the Linux Kernel Personality of Unixware:
http://www.sco.de/produkte/un
ixware713.html
Absolutely no mentions about the lawsuit, although there is a picture with the
text: Worry free software which might hint on the lawsuit. I don't know whether
that was there earlier.
There is also a mention at the main page that a new LKP (Linux Kernel
Personality) for Unixware 7.1.3 will be delivered at the end of August 2003.
There is mention however about the Vultus acquisition in the press section with
25th of July date.
The legal data says, that the main seat of the company is in Lindon, Utah, USA,
the total worldwide income? of the business year 2002 was 60million USD (is this
correct?), and that the President and CEO of the company is Darl McBride.
Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
| The latest press entry is Aug. 4th.
And lot's of mentions of common business with IBM in the newsletter mentioned
although most of them are Linux independent, but not all.
Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:40 PM EDT |
| Oh, and it was not entirely clear in the comments:
they do not list SCO Linux among products on the web page.
Robvarga[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
MathFox, I beat you: I've got 2.4.20 from Sun! ;)
Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
| When you wrote "things will move quickly now" I don't think you meant this,
right?
What was that analyst quote?
"... more from the realization that SCO is a psycho litigation machine .... "
?
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
| Dr. Stupid, I've got the 2.4.20 Sun version too, but I'm not sure that that's
GPLed to SCO's statisfaction! ;)
BTW, I succeeded in registering something Linux at the SCO website by
entering GPL as the licence number at the registration website... So I guess
I've legally covered my ass now! <ROTFL/>
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
| I ran across this today...
Interesting blog on the MS DOJ case by a Lewis A. Mettler, Esq.
http://www.lamlaw.c
om/DOJvsMicrosoft/WrapAndFlow.html
Scroll down to August 1, 2003... Friday 6:10 AM PDT - Open-source luminaries
Spurn SCO
He's of the opinion that there's no basis for SCO to go after individual Linux
users:
"Assuming for the moment, that code was copied from Unix System V to Linux or
any other product. Let's assume that is true... The mistake [SCO is] making is
that a customer's USE of Linux is NOT a violation of the copyright..."
And he goes on. What do you think?
bobm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 02:43 PM EDT |
| bobm: it is no legal advice (It is bedtime for me and I had a beer to many)
Lamlaw is blunt, but often right!
The whole case is to complicated to explain in two lines; Copyright law
varies from country to country; in some countries owners of software have
implicit rights to run the software, in others they need an explicit license to
do so. Claims are that SCO permitted unlimited use of Linux by distributing it
under the GPL; SCO claims that that permission doesn't extent to certain parts
of Linux 2.4 that they like to keep secret...
I can say that SCO makes some claims without precedence and that you need a
sober lawyer (I am neither (sober nor lawyer) at the moment) to help to find
your legal position.
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
| OOOOOHHHHHHH!!
Now I REALLY want Boies to reap a little of what he's sowing!!! Ready to go,
huh? Well, you ain't the only one! Let's get this thing into court
already!
Anyway, it seems like what there sayings is "If Red Hat (representing, to some
extent, all distributers?) is actually going to go to court, we, in a
transparent attempt to avoid actually having to present any facts, have to shift
our focus to end-users, who are much less likely to sue." (sorry about the
run-on sentence, but it was "SCO" speaking, and we know they're capable of
anything).
Man I'm pissed!
Paul Krause[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
| The SCO intellectual property web site has a link labeled "warning to linux
shops" with this content: http://www.sco.com/scos
ource/gartner_warning.html
After reading the report, I'm quite surprised SCO has published it. For
example, the report contains the following quote:
"In Gartner's opinion, SCO's claim that IBM misappropriated trade secrets from
AIX will be difficult to prove."
What is SCO thinking?
kwright[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 03:50 PM EDT |
| They are very unclear, and purposely so, but this must be their position.
Since they claim to own an interest in Linux but now do not authorize its
distribution under the GPL, the GPL forbids distribution of (what SCO thinks is)
the combined derivative work. Therefore Red Hat, SuSE, IBM, etc, are not legally
permitted to distribute Linux at all. But they do anyway, since they do not
believe SCO's unsubstantiated claims.
No fear, the GPL specifically holds those who receive the distributed code
blameless in this situation. Except for SCO's part ... they won't grant
end-users such consideration. They demand cash.
It's a really weird position, and I think it will be shredded to pieces. But
there is some bizarre logic behind it.
There are signs they don't really want to sell many of these licenses, the real
goal is to encumber and kill distribution of Linux. Darl McBride referred to
some report that illegal music downloading is down 30% since the music industry
went after end users. Shouldn't he have made a comment about increasing revenues
or sales instead?
Tossie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 03:52 PM EDT |
| SCO is pushing a Political Agenda
... not Business Interests
The lack of clarity is clearly intentional
on SCO's part. What they are doing really does not make business
or legal sense. They are now pushing a political agenda:
* How the open source model is unsustainable
* How developers who like open source agree with them and
question how they will be compensated financially
* How Red Hat's recent loss of customers is its own fault
for an unworkable busniess model
* How Linux legal liability rests with the end user
* How RH and IBM will not offer indemnification
* How RH and IBM painted targets on the backs of their customers
* How SCO is forced to take on end users
It's all legal and business nonsense. They have no business
development of their own to report except this licensing.
But it pushes a line of argument that certain large players
in dominant positions in the industry want to push.
Tossie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
pj,
If you haven't already gotten there, http://www.technewswor
ld.com/perl/story/21695.html. It has your fav. person ms. DiDiot.
Mike
Henderson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 05:49 PM EDT |
| pj.If the clueless analysts/reporters out there would spend half of the time
doing research like you have the world could have a better view of SCO v IBM.
Thanks for keeping us enlighten with your digging.
Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
