|
Part One of Transcript of Today's Teleconference |
|
Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 06:11 PM EDT
|
Here's the first part of Darl McBride's statement that he read first. I'll put the rest up as I get it done. I'll be providing a finished version eventually, but you'll get the idea and at least you won't have to wait to get the main thrust of the day. The rest is just like this part, menacing and lacking in comprehension of the GPL.
Here's the McBride statement:
"Thanks to all of you for joining us today.Yesterday, Red Hat filed a legal action against the SCO Group in Delaware federal court and announced the formation of the Open Source Development Fund. The purpose of this call today is to comment on those actions and discuss SCO's new licensing plan going forward.
"Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we've been saying all along: Linux developers are either unwilling or unable to screen code in the Linux kernel to remove infringing code before customers buy and use it.
"Let me be clear. Red Hat is selling Linux that contains verbatim and obfuscated code from UNIX System V. Red Hat is also selling Linux that contains derivative works from UNIX that have been contributed to Linux in violation of UNIX licensing agreements. Some of these companies, like IBM and Sequent, have now had their license agreements terminated for acting in violation of the terms and agreements.
"We've had a chance to preliminarily review the lawsuit and Red Hat's press statement from yesterday, and there's several responses to [inaudible].
"First, RH claims that we have not shown examples of infringing code in Linux. This statement is simply not true. We have shown examples of infringing code in Linux to many distinct people, including some Linux advocates. We set up a viewing center in Lindon, Utah. We have gone to companies around the world to show infringing code.
"In fact, this same offer was made to RH, but they chose instead to sue us. RH is apparently trying to pretend that no problem exists.
"The code that the court will review in this case contains verbatim code from UNIX and misappropriated derivative works from UNIX. That has to be clear to the people that have reviewed the example code that we have shown. [inaudible]
"Second point: RH claims SCO is at fault for its loss of recent Linux business. We believe that SCO is not at fault for RH's recent loss of business. Rather, we suggest that RH has adopted a faulty business model. In its [inaudible] disclosure filed with the SEC on July 7th, 2003, just a few weeks ago, RH included very revealing risk factor disclosures that speak to this business model. The risk disclosure states that RH relies on software developed by independent parties over whom it exercises no control. The disclosure statement continues to state that RH lacks access to unpublished software patent applications and copyright registrations. These are RH's words about its own business. RH's disclosure also warns that if infringing code is in Linux, it may need to stop product shipments.
"In fact, this warning is consistent with the requirements of Section 7 of the General Public License, under which Linux is shipped to end users. The GPL states in Section 7 as follows:
"'If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.'
"So, this is the main problem of RH's business model. It distributes under the GPL. It has no control to prevent infringing code from going in to Linux. But if infringing code is found, RH is required under the GPL to stop shipments of Linux. That business model seems unsustainable in the long run.
"We believe it is the real cause of RH's business problems, not SCO. These issues would have surfaced eventually, with or without SCO."
"Third point: RH has pledged one million dollars for a Linux Development Fund. This pledge misses the mark. SCO has never considered suing Linux developers as individuals, only companies that employ them, like IBM, who are taking improper advantage of their UNIX licenses with SCO.
"Furthermore, RH's pledge will not do anything for end users, since there is still no indemnification for Linux end users. If RH or other Linux [inaudiable, maybe players] decides at some point in the future to [inaudible, maybe redraw] the defense fund to protect those who need protecting, we'd suggest they need to increase the size of the fund dramatically. With over 2 1/2 million servers running infringing Linux 2.4, the price of indemnification is measured in the billions of dollars, an exposure which monumentally dwarfs the current pledge of one million dollars."
Fourth point: Red Hat thinks SCO should publicly show them every line of infringing code. Why is this? So RH can acknowledge SCO's legitimate claims and acknowledge the key role that UNIX intellectual property is playing in the growth of Linux? Not likely.
"Red Hat thinks we should show them every line of infringing code so they can make changes and go forward, in complete ... with complete disregard for our business rights. Some [inaudible] developers are so comfortable with misappropriating UNIX code and derivative works that they seem to feel an entitlement to keep doing it. [inaudible, something about SCO spending a lot of money to develop and purchase their valuable IP] That makes no sense.
"At issue here is more than just SCO and Red Hat. What is at issue is whether intellectual property rights will have any value in the age of the internet, where intellectual property rights can be simply taken without regard to rightful ownership. Some people think they have the right to do that. Linux companies seem to encourage that, and even make business models around selling an unwarranted software code developed under a 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy.
"Our society is engaged in an important debate to decide whether IP will remain proprietary or whether it will all become communal property according to Richard Stallman's vision for all software distributed under the General Public License, such as Linux.
"There are so many current intellectual property [inaudible, maybe violations or infractions], responsible corporations cannot disregard this as someone else's problem. SCO, one small company, intends to defend its intellectual property rights vigorously against Red Hat and all others.
"This is the only clear path for long-term profitability growth for any company in this internet era."
This was followed by his statement announcing the license plan. About 9 questions and answers followed, which is the part I haven't got transcribed yet. At the end, he made the statement I put up earlier and which I repeat here, so as to complete (eventually, gasp) the whole transcript:
"What they [Red Hat] didn't say is becoming by now very loud and very clear, and that is, the legal liability for Linux truly rests with the end user.
"As we move down the path of resolving our issues, we recognize that we're in a broader world of intellectual property issues right now. If you look at what's happened in the music business over the last few months, the music fights on for a number of years, and there's been billions of dollars the artists and the companies there have lost, and when they finally took the fight down to where the infringements are going on, the copyright infringement going on at the end users end of the music business, one press report I read said there is a 30% slowdown of downloading of illegal music on the internet after these customer lawsuits started.
"If we have to go down that path, then, again, we've been pushed there, we will go down there, that's why Boies' team is engaged, and David is ready to go, if that's what we have to do."
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
Thanks for the great transcript! Here's a link to a really quick transcript of
the Q and A:
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act
ion=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=23814
http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&act
ion=m&board=1600684464&tid=cald&sid=1600684464&mid=23819
I know yours will be much cleaner. I had no recording to work from and was
distracted too. Tossie[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 04:01 PM EDT |
Now some comments:
SCO is 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?
SCO's Political Agenda
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 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
> the GPL forbids distribution of (what SCO thinks is) the combined derivative
work
Then SCO also doesn't have rights to distribute Linux to anyone, whether they
are a previous SCO customer or not? What's sauce for the goose (Red Hat) should
be sauce for the gander (SCO)
Futhermore SCO say on their web site that their license is incompatible with the
GPL, quoting from http://www.sco.com/scos
ource/linuxlicensefaq.html says:
Why doesn’t SCO offer an IP License for Linux to the Linux distribution
companies so that they can bundle SCO IP with their Linux distribution?
The SCO compliance program is an end-user program for the right to use SCO IP in
binary format. The IP License for Linux does not grant distribution rights, nor
does it grant any rights associated with source code. SCO doesn’t offer a
license to cure the infringement on the part of the Linux distributor because
SCO’s source license agreement directly conflicts with the GPL.
So I have to ask, by what right do SCO distribute GPL software (openlinux) even
to their own customers??? Seems like they've already said twice, that the GPL
does not grant them any right whatsoever to do so. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
"Our society is engaged in an important debate to decide whether IP will remain
proprietary or whether it will all become communal property according to Richard
Stallman's vision for all software distributed under the General Public License,
such as Linux."
The plan of war is laid out by SCO. That is the overall purpose of this
exercise: to destroy the GPL. That quote that sounds as if it could have been
written by Microsoft itself. Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 04:20 PM EDT |
This part of McBride's speech makes me spitting mad:
"Red Hat thinks we should show them every line of infringing code so they can
make changes and go forward, in complete ... with complete disregard for our
business rights."
What makes SCO think it has the right to *force* Linux developers and users to
continue using a binary version of Linux with SCO's code in it, if it is
actually proven that SCO's code exists in Linux at all? This is insane talk
from McBride. Red Hat, in addition to every Linux developer on the planet, has
*every* right to know what infringing code exists, so that they can rip it out.
Linux 2.6 deserves to be free of all SCO's dirty, unwelcome code.
I am also spitting mad over the media, and their seemingly inability to reveal
SCO for what it is: a company run by unlawful, immoral extortionists. Thank god
for sites like this one, where the truth can come out. Philip Stephens[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
A wee bit ot but I had to chime in on this; remember Sun and their stumble into
the "rabbit hole"?
http://radio.weblogs.com
/0120124/2003/07/31.html
Of particular interest was this statment:
"Don't touch open source software unless you have a team of intellectual
property lawyers prepared to scour every single piece [of the open source code].
We offer indemnification, but many suppliers do not. A lot of companies are
going to get very disappointed as we move forward. It will become a very
challenging intellectual property issue."
Now followed by this announcment today: Sun joins ODSL
http://news.com.com/2104-725
2_3-5060143.html
Hmmm... Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
Sorry, meant ODSL, but you knew that! ;-) Mike[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 05:25 PM EDT |
If I can make request of PJ and others to answer some questions:
Can you explain what issues if any there are with indemnification? If SCO
wanted to do the same thing to Microsoft, would Microsoft have options that IBM
and Red Hat don't have? Also if SCO threatened MS end users, would the
end-users have options IBM and Red Hat end-users don't have?
Another question is exactly what has to be met to qualify for a preliminary as
opposed to permanent injunction? Do you think any Linux proponents could meet
those requirements? r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 05:39 PM EDT |
I'd like to know what defenses SCO could possibly bring up against revealing the
alleged infringed code when said infringed code is already in the public domain
and available though possibly not known to all, albiet without SCO's approval?
How could SCO overcome a public good argument for keeping OpenSource open and in
the public domain considering the monumental good OpenSource provides to the
public? PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
"" I'd like to know what defenses SCO could possibly bring up against revealing
the alleged infringed "
They've claimed "trade secret" status in the past (search for "trade secrets" on
this page to see why this is ridiculous)
http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/SCOvsIBMSCOLicensingJustSayNO
Now they're also claiming "contractual obligations".
PS pj, I hope you don't consider this advertising. Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
Compare
"Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we've been saying all along: Linux developers
are either unwilling or unable to screen code in the Linux kernel to remove
infringing code before customers buy and use it."
So he thinks Red Hat might be willing to remove any infringing code.
vs
"Red Hat thinks we should show them every line of infringing code so they can
make changes and go forward, in complete ... with complete disregard for our
business rights."
So he thinks Red Hat is willing to remove any infringing code.
"either unwilling or unable" must therefore be "unable". And the fact they have
no idea what is supposed to be infringing, presumably why they'd be "unable". quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
PhilTR:
There are a lot of arguments, most of them expressed in Groklaw that SCO
couldn't possibly counter in court.
It seems SCO's strategy is to delay any court decisions and grab as much money
as they can in the interim from companies willing to pay to slow down linux and
maybe from companies unwilling to take even the near-zero risk of being sued by
SCO.
(The RIAA doesn't use that strategy because it actually represents real
copyright holders and therefore has a legal leg to stand on.)
Now that McBride is gloating about how the Delaware action won't see a judge
until 2005 and has actually said in public that he will not show the infringing
code because he doesn't want anyone to change it (!) I'm sure we'll see more
developments from the Linux side. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
"If SCO wanted to do the same thing to Microsoft, would Microsoft have options
that IBM and Red Hat don't have? Also if SCO threatened MS end users, would the
end-users have options IBM and Red Hat end-users don't have?"
There are major differences. I assume that Microsoft is still operating under
the terms of a sealed settlement with Caldera in the DR DOS case. They have
since been convicted of multiple antitrust violations and are operating under a
Consent Decree. I doubt that they want to be dragged back into either court over
a dispute about another operating system. That sort of thing probably would get
a hearing very quickly. IBM might be able to purchase SCO, but Microsoft buying
the rights to Unix? That sort of thing couldn't pass muster with the regulators
or Courts here or in the EU. I'm sure that Microsoft is making the most of the
current situation, I'm just not so sure they had a great deal of choice in the
matter. After all, they just signed a contract with the SCO Group, and
"contracts are what they use against people they know". In case you are
wondering the same sort of dispute could arise with MS Windows. The last
sentence of the first paragraph is exactly the sort of thing that caused them to
level charges against IBM.
Compaq to merge Unix and Windows NT:
http://h18020.w
ww1.hp.com/newsroom/pr/1998/pr100998d.html
Recently, Microsoft announced that they would start indemnifying Select and
Enterprise license holders. If you purchased Windows pre-installed from an OEM
you really have no direct dealings with Microsoft and may not recover anything
from them in court. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 08:40 PM EDT |
I know this is not exactly the same, and entirely fictional, but what if some
small company came forward and said
"Part of MS Windows infringes our IP rights. We are not going to sue MS. We are
not going to sue Compaq or Dell or Egghead or any other distributor. We won't
tell MS or anybody else what part of Windows infringes out rights. Instead we
demand payment from end users of all Microsoft products from Pocket PCs to
Windows 2003 servers. Pay now or the price will rise soon. We've also send
letters to all large companies advising of their legal risk to continue use
Windows without paying.".
What would happen? What would MS do? What would federal and states do? quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
"I'd like to know what defenses SCO could possibly bring up against revealing
the alleged infringed code when said infringed code is already in the public
domain and available though possibly not known to all, albiet without SCO's
approval?"
IBM didn't purchase a Unixware license, it was a license for the old Unix System
V. SCO admits that IBM owns the copyright and or patent rights for JFS, RCU. and
NUMA. Those are not in Unix System V. They only claim that they control the
release of these as derivatives under their contract or license with IBM. They
probably have never seen IBM's proprietary source code, and simply plan to
obtain copies during the discovery phase. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 01:57 AM EDT |
Quartermass:
"I know this is not exactly the same"
That's exactly my question. I haven't seen a legal argument that it wouldn't
exactly the same with MS. Would there really be a difference or not? I know up
to now of the many many parties that have had patent or copyright disputes with
Microsoft, none have even hinted at going to the end users.
Where is the law that going after Linux end users is easier than going after
Microsoft end users?
SCO and Microsoft seem to want us to just take it as a given that Linux
end-users are more vulnerable than end-users of proprietary software. But I
won't believe it until PJ agrees. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
r.a. (and others)
A quick summary of copyright law:
- Copyright is the exclusive right of authors to copy and distribute their
work.
Software is seen as a copyrighted work, so if Mircosoft copies and
distributes my work I can sue Mircosoft for damages. If SCO finds problems in
Linux, it should sue or settle with the Linux distributors.
SCO has a big legal problem here as it distributed Linux under the GPL. They
effectively licenced the "offending" code by doing so. (SCO denies that.) They
still have the right to sue the one that contributed their code to Linux. (IBM,
not IBM?)
In some countries it is fair use to install and run a legally obtained copy
of a program; without having an explicit license to do so. In other countries an
explicit run-time license is required to do the copying nescessary to run the
program. It is very much dependent on the details of your law what your legal
status is when you are running Linux in good faith. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
Mathfox:
Thanks. Is it running a copy fair use in the United States? I've read the
answer is yes.
My biggest question is yes or no, is the situation different depending on if the
program is open or closed source?
MS and SCO are really trying to hammer the point the closed source is safer for
an end user. I don't get it. Not that I want to get it.
If it is the case that no end user has been successfully sued in the United
States for copyright infringement, that would be a great fact to add to our
arsenal. Is there an easy way to find out if that is true? r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
Quartermass and r.a. What is fictional?
http://www.timeline.com/021903PR.htm
Timeline patents are licensed to Microsoft, but not sublicensed to SQL
developers who purchase the product from Microsoft. If they develop applications
that infringe on Timelines patents they have to purchase a license.
Linux users usually have a license to copy and redistribute binaries and source
code. Most Microsoft EULA's prohibit that sort of thing in the first place. A
legitimate copyright violation might cause the rightful owner to go after Linux
users to stop any further redistribution. I think we can all agree that SCO
isn't doing anything to actually stop distribution. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 08:51 AM EDT |
Fighting FUD
It's becoming my conclusion that SCO has given up on winning a judgement and is
now trying to just stretch the proceedings as long as possible and profit from
FUD.
The conference call was just unbelievable if they were trying to win these
cases.
For example, until Tuesday SCO could not reveal the code in question because
doing so would violate its contracts with other Unix vendors. After yesterday
they don't reveal the code because they are afraid Red Hat would remove it and
stop infringing without paying them. Another example, they rushed to publish an
FAQ about the licensing program that *admits* it is not consistent with the GPL
that they distributed Linux under. They admit it.
So I think the bigger fight now is fighting SCO's FUD until the cases are over.
And I think it would be helpful to people who don't care about this issue as
much as we do if we compile a list of SCO statements and short understandable
responses.
Here is my version 0.0. I hope other readers of this site can add more and
maybe someone (me?) can compile all of our best responses and put them into one
place that journalists or non-technical people considering the Linux vs Sco
matter can find.
SCO Statement:
Red Hat is selling Linux that contains verbatim and obfuscated code from UNIX
System V.
Proposed response:
Assuming there is identical or close code in both Linux and SCO Unix, there is
no proof that the copying was done from the closed code to the open code. Linux
programmers program in the open. They know their code will be read by the
public. SCO Unix programmers program in secret. They don't expect their code
to ever be seen. If SCO publicly names the code in question this issue can be
settled. It refuses to do so.
SCO Statement:
Red Hat is also selling Linux that contains derivative works from UNIX that have
been contributed to Linux in violation of UNIX licensing agreements.
Proposed response:
SCO is in court now trying to change how their agreements were followed from
their inception until May 2003. SCO or its predecessors was aware and
participated in all of the contributions all vendors made to Linux. The new
interpretation they are trying to pursue is questionable at best.
SCO Statement:
RH's pledge will not do anything for end users, since there is still no
indemnification for Linux end users.
Proposed response:
The biggest threat to Linux end users is that they will have to endure more
empty threats of being sued by SCO until the matter is settled in court. If SCO
was able to sue end users, it would have sued one and established its right to
do so. Then it could expect a high participation rate in its licensing programs
since the issues would be clear. As it is, SCO is threatening millions of Linux
users hoping a tiny percentage will pay their fees. Their strategy is more like
Email spammers or Nigerian Scam artists than reputable businesses.
SCO claim:
We have a 100% hit rate of people saying yeah there is a problem.
Proposed response:
Since one viewer has publicly stated that he can't see how what he was shown
could convince a judge of grave copyright problems, and since none of the
viewers have heard Linux developers defending themselves, and since SCO seems
very reluctant to let a judge be one of the viewers anytime soon. That
statement is at best misleading.
SCO statement:
We think IP rights and the legal system do matter.
Proposed response:
Thousands of developers added their work to a GPL'd work with the expectation
that that license would be followed. SCO is now distributing that work openly
in violation of its license and trying to profit from that.
Please add your thoughts. And take from my list anything you find helpful. By
making our side of the issue easy to acquire and understand, we will be hurting
SCO in the only place it still cares, its FUD battles. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 09:04 AM EDT |
Harlan:
Thanks a lot for that. That strikes directly at one of MS/SCO's main FUD
assertions. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
r.a.,
First your question "Is running a copy fair use in the US?" I don't know, I'm
Dutch and didn't study the US Copyright law. If LamLaw says so, he probably is
right; I won't argue against an US lawyer on his turf! You can sign away some of
your legal rights in a contract, beware of EULA's as they often contain very
unfavorable terms.
With regard to your FUD answer list, you've missed the most important of
all:
An end user needs a SCO licence to run a tainted legal kernel
Answer: SCO allready licenced it to the world under the GPL. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 11:26 AM EDT |
Harlan, I do not think Timeline is the same as my example
1. Timeline is about patents, not about copyright, "control rights", etc
2. The IP which was in dispute was clear
3. As far as I know Timeline didn't hit on MS users. If they ever do, it would
presumably after they prove the main MS issue, not before. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 11:27 AM EDT |
Harlan, I do not think Timeline is the same as my example
1. Timeline is about patents, not about copyright, "control rights", etc
2. The IP which was in dispute was clear
3. As far as I know Timeline didn't hit on MS users. If they ever do, it would
presumably after they prove the main MS issue, not before. quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 01:57 PM EDT |
quatermass The link I provided is Timeline's press release commenting about
winning their case against Microsoft on Appeal. The appeal was entirely devoted
to the right to enforce their patent claims against MS SQL end users. It's a
little long, if you are just skimming it, skip to the last half.
"Timeline is about patents,..." yes but IBM/Sequent enjoy the patent rights to
both NUMA and RCU, as well as the copyrights to the supporting
code/implementations they submitted for the consideration of the kernel.org
folks. They have also properly licensed them for use in the Linux kernel. NUMA
in particular is bound to hardware, and doesn't even depend on the Unix
operating system. SCO makes a number of claims that relate to contracts or
patents, but not copyrights. For example, their objections to "obfuscated code"
in the Linux kernel have nothing to do with copyrights. Their contractual claims
to confidentiality of (public domain) trade secret "methods and procedures" can
have no application to IBM's publicly patented technology. Patents,
applications, and all related correspondence on file at USPTO are all eventually
made available to the public. These documents openly make specific technological
claims that are non-obvious and original. It's quite a reach to say that
copyright or contract derivative works clauses apply to new and original
(patented) technology. Copyright gives you very little means to go after an end
user. Patents are a property right and a grant of monopoly power that allows the
owner “to exclude others from making, USING, offering for sale, or selling the
invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the
United States”. Harlan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
The Open Source and Industry Associaton is
about to launch. It is looking for members. They will do advocacy and lobbying.
As soon as they're able to set up a funding mechanism, yours truely will anty
up. PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
If Company S owns the rights to Product U, and Company S sells Product L under
terms that allow its redistribution, does that not imply that distribution of
Product L under the specified terms does not violate rights to Product U? Or,
to put it less hypothetically, when SCO, the company that owned Unix, said Linux
could be redistributed under the GPL, was that not sufficent assurance that SCO
did not regard Linux as violating any Unix "intellectual property" rights? What
need did Red Hat or any other Linux distributor or user have to investigate
further, except perhaps with respect to code included in their versions but not
in SCO's?
SCO's efforts to portray Red Hat and others as negligent are almost as ludicrous
as they are hypocritical. As both the owner of Unix System V and a Linux
distributor, SCO was in by far the best position of any Linux distributor to
identify violations of Unix copyrights in Linux. But did SCO catch the problems
they allege are in the 2.4 kernel before they started using that kernel in their
Linux distributions? Further, SCO had the unique position of having the power
to choose whether to deal with violations of Unix copyrights by demanding that
the code in question be removed from Linux or by opening the code in question
for use under the GPL. If one assumes that SCO held themselves to the same high
standards that they now seem to think Red Hat should be held to, we should take
for granted that any Unix code in SCO's Linux distributions cannot possibly be
there except as a result of a deliberate choice by SCO to make the code
available under the GPL.
Finally, consider what may be the scariest aspect of SCO's dual status as Unix
owner and Linux distributor. Did SCO act promptly to have suspected Unix code
removed from Linux as soon as they saw a problem? Or did they initially
implicitly consent to the use of the code under the GPL and only later, when
they changed business strategies, start to claim the code as proprietary? If
the latter, not only are they in gross and deliberate violation of the GPL, but
very possibly of some criminal laws as well. I certainly hope that that issue
is investigated fully as the case progresses. Nathan Barclay[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 12:12 AM EDT |
Mathfox:
"An end user needs a SCO licence to run a tainted legal kernel
Answer: SCO allready licenced it to the world under the GPL. "
I agree that that's an important piece of SCO fud to counter. It may be
possible to improve the answer so that it is easier to understand for someone
who is not following this issue. For example I've read an anecdote that a
person's local school board decided against linux because of this issue. Also
if journalists have access to answers they can understand they will produce
stories that seem more sympathetic to our side.
I'm offering this as a possible starting point.
SCO statement:
SCO has created the Intellectual Property License for Linux in response to these
customer needs. Customers who are running Linux distributions on a client, a
server or an embedded system can obtain a license from SCO to use the SCO IP in
binary form.
Response:
That's just a scam. If there were SCO copyrighted or patented code in Linux,
SCO would be able to stop Linux from being distributed, order the code removed
and then it could collect damages for past use of its patents or past
distribution of its copyrights. Instead SCO is trying to scare users into
paying them before any of their claims are proven and before Linux developers
even have a chance to defend themselves against SCO's charges. Instead of
appealing to the law, SCO is appealing to the fear of people who don't
understand the issues in order to collect payments. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 02:03 AM EDT |
r.a. I think the starting point is very good! I like it that you use the word
scam, while lawyers are talking about extortion. Okay, I'll try to reword my GPL
Q&A
FAQ: What are my rights as a Linux user when I don't buy SCO's license?
Answer: The authors of the Linux kernel chose to apply the GPL (General
Public Licence) to it. This means that you are free to run the kernel (on as
much CPUs as you like), have the right to see the source code, modify and
compile it, and are allowed to distribute Linux (modified or the original code)
under the conditions of the GPL [link].
We think that the GPL still applies, even if SCO's claims of illegal copying
are ruled true. The GPL has a provision that all code that is distributed as
part of a GPLed program must be distributed under the conditions of the GPL. SCO
still is distributing versions of the Linux kernel and it will infringe the
copyrights of the Linux coders if it uses a different license than the GPL.
So SCO implicity allowed distribution of (at least some of) the code they
claim that is infringing their rights under the conditions of the GPL. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|