|
|
| An Open Letter to Darl McBride |
 |
|
Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 08:15 PM EDT
|
What you said in your statement today, as I heard it, is this: no one has the right to come up with a business plan that might put yours out of business.
I feel your frustration, but that's like saying if I come up with a better mousetrap, I can't sell it, if it will put prior mousetrap manufacturers out of business. Don't you believe in free markets? Don't people get to choose a better mousetrap, if someone invents one? The GPL is a better mousetrap for software than what you are offering, which is why your software business isn't thriving.
Now, before you have a stroke thinking you are getting a letter from a nasty IP pirate, I want you to know that I never, ever knowingly violate anyone's legal rights. I don't download music unless I have paid for it. No kidding. If you really have infringing code that you are willing to show, I'll definitely not use it. If I have to jump down to 2.2 or up to 2.6, or wait for a clean version of the kernel, or switch to the HURD or BSD, or stop using computers entirely, whatever it takes, I'm happy to do so, if necessary. I really mean it.
I know for sure no one in the GNU/Linux community wants your code. You yourself in your statement acknowledged that Red Hat wants to see the infringing code so it can take it out. The only party refusing to let that happen is you. Do you want it to stay in, if it exists, just so you can make money from licenses? Um...is that legal? I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I've misunderstood, and you can explain it to me.
As I understand it, a copyright must be public, so if you're really finding verbatim code, there really is no reason not to show it. I believe, in fact, the burden is on you, not us, to do so. A trade secret is something else, but there are no secrets about copyrighted material, and besides, according to you, your trade secrets have been outed already by IBM, so no contract that you could possibly have could require secrecy for copyrighted code, unless I have missed something huge. Perhaps you can explain that part of your message more clearly than you did today, unless clarification isn't your intent.
You are the only entity here who can know what infringes your proprietary code, because proprietary means we can't look at it, so you have to identify it yourself. Your unwillingness to mitigate any problem you may have leads us to believe you may not have a legitimate problem or that you may have an illegitimate goal, like maybe destroying GNU/Linux. Say, is that legal? To try to destroy someone else's business? You can ask David about that.
Really, no one wants your code. That's the problem with your business model.
But when you say that the GPL, and releasing code under the GPL, is the same as stealing IP in the internet era, someone needs to explain some things to you.
First, the author gets to choose what licensing terms he or she wishes to release code under, if any. That's his IP right, as you would think of it. The GPL doesn't result in communal property. Each author retains his or her own copyright in the code or can turn it over to another entity, such as the FSF, depending on the author's choice. That, by definition, means it isn't communal property. Somebody owns it and has copyright rights in it. Just like you say you do in UNIX code. It's their copyrighted property, which they require you to respect, just as you would like others to respect your rights.
On top of the copyright, GPL coders choose to give users and other programmers more rights than copyright law itself allows. That's also their legal right. It's no different than Microsoft slapping a EULA on its copyrighted work, except it is different in that their EULA takes away rights, where the GPL gives rights. If the GPL isn't "legal", then neither is Microsoft's EULA. It's the same concept.
Now, I'm a writer, so that means this letter is copyrighted. So is everything else I write. No one can take it and print it anywhere without my permission under copyright law, except for fair use, which I believe in and I'm sure you do too, since it's part of the law.
I choose, however, to use the Creative Commons license for my site, because I want people to use whatever I put up here in accord with broader rights than copyright allows. Reporters "steal" my research results all the time and use it as if they did it themselves, and that is fine with me. I want them to do that. They can't steal anything when I freely give it to them to do whatever they want. I want the widest possible distribution of my work so people will see through your, well, excuse me, but what I would call your FUD.
Are you saying that I can't distribute that way, because other web sites charge for access to their content? If not, what is the difference? The GPL is a choice some programmers make, in some cases because they believe in free software, free as in speech, and others because it leads to tremendous benefits in the end result, the software. It's a legal choice, whatever the motivation. Can't you see the difference between that legal choice and piracy, as you call it?
GPL'd code is meant to be used and improved, unless you use it only privately, in which case you don't have to share anything, even any improvements you feel like making to the code. It's yours and yours alone unless you distribute. Companies that aren't software companies can use GPL code as much as they like safely and they will never have to share any private code they add to it, so long as they never distribute the code. That's my understanding of how the GPL works.
And as for Red Hat's SEC risk disclosures, I have a tip for you. No one, including you, has access to unpublished patent applications and copyright registrations. It's a problem common to all, that one minute before you do your search, someone will file an application that will eventually come to light, once the data is updated, and make your later application void. Take a look on the Copyright Office or the USPTO's web site. They explain that to you.
Nice try.
As to the GPL, I think somebody needs to explain it to you a bit better. You have set it up, you think, so end users can't be in compliance with both your license and the GPL at the same time, so no further distribution can occur, as you said. But there is another option. We can remove your code, if you ever show it, or start from scratch, or switch to the HURD kernel, or BSD, or whatever it takes to diligently avoid your code. Then we'll just keep on coding without you and distributing away. That's if you hadn't already released this code already under the GPL, which I think you did, in which case you can't now take it back and write another license for the same code.
We can also decide to try to defeat your claims in a court of law, and that seems to be the legal choice so far everyone is choosing to follow. How is using the courts to establish rights equivalent to piracy? That's what courts are for: to determine if folks like you have any claimed rights or not. Until that happens, you'll have to admit it's a stretch to compare yourself to the glorious RIAA. At least they have demonstrated some copyrights under the current law. So far, you have not. Inviting flies into your spiderweb to look at code you have hand picked and, from analyst reports, edited, just doesn't qualify as proof of rights. It isn't even showing the code.
I hope you figure the GPL part out real soon, so you don't sink in the quicksand I believe you are standing on. Actually, that's hypocritical. I hope you do sink, in a business sense, grasping your unwanted code close to your proprietary heart.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 05:50 PM EDT |
Heheh...go girl!
PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 06:36 PM EDT |
Bravo!
Quan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:26 PM EDT |
| My open letter to Darl McBride
Dear Mr McBride,
If I understand SCO's position correctly, it is:
1. Linux 2.4 consists of copyrighted work licensed under the GPL by various
authors, as well as some form of SCO's IP which has never been legitimately
licensed under the GPL.
2. SCO believes in protecting IP holders' right is important.
While I will leave the merits of your claim of SCO's IP being in Linux to
another day, I would like to ask you about the rights of other Linux copyright
holders and whether SCO's actions are consistent with your stated position on
the importance of protecting IP holders' rights.
As you are aware, the GPL forbids distribution of a combined work contain GPLed
and non-GPLed code.
I believe you are aware of this, and agree with this interpretation of the GPL,
because it says so on your company's web site:
Quoting from http://www.sco.com/scos
ource/linuxlicensefaq.html it 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. "
Furthermore, you reiterated this position in your August 5 conference call,
referring to Red Hat's Linux distribution:
"But if infringing code is found, RH is required under the GPL to stop shipments
of Linux."
It would therefore seem that distributing Linux would not be appropriate, in
your view. As any such distribution, by anybody, would in fact infringe the
copyrighted IP and GPL license, of the various Linux coders for the code does
not form part of the alleged infringing code in Linux.
So I have to ask, by what right do SCO continue distribute GPL software (SCO
Linux) from your official FTP site ftp.sco.com ?
I am not aware of any special provision in the GPL that grants SCO more rights
to distribute Linux than Red Hat. So if Red Hat have no right to distribute
Linux, why do you think SCO have that right?
I am aware you now (added today) state on your web site that your distribution
is only for existing SCO Linux customers, but again I would do seem any
provision in the GPL nor am aware of any special provision for SCO or anybody
else, that says you may ignore the GPL if distributing to existing customers.
So can you please explain why you think SCO is legally entitled to distribute
GPL licensed Linux software, and especially the non-contested portions, at
all?
Finally referring once again to your license FAQ at http://www.sco.com/scos
ource/linuxlicensefaq.html
"If SCO doesn’t offer a license that would permit the distribution of an in
house customized Linux OS to internal data centers, what is the value of
correcting the infringement on the part of my end users when my company as a
whole is still infringing SCO’s intellectual property? What should I do?"
"Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink
wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If
you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the
customized Linux distribution. SCO understands that these options are very
constraining and is investigating alternative that both protect its intellectual
property and are less burdensome for end users."
Specifically I would like to ask about these two sentences:
"Consider migrating from an in house customized version of Linux to a shrink
wrap, off the shelf version of Linux or to an alternative operating system. If
you are unable to migrate, consider outsourcing the development of the
customized Linux distribution."
If as you contend nobody should be distributing Linux, aren't you encouraging
further infringement of IP rights either by buying a shrink wrap version, or by
simply getting somebody else to do it ("outsourcing")? If you don't think this
is the case, why not?
P.S.
I notice your Linux license from SCOsource is for Linux 2.4 and Linux 2.5. In
future if I get a subsequent version of Linux, would you expect users to pay you
for the upgrade?
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:33 PM EDT |
| I posted this earlier and seeking comment on my understanding of GPL.
Isn't SCO violating the IP rights of the independent Linux developers
(legitimate non-unix contributors) and in effect stealing THEIR contributed code
by attempting to distribute all of the non-sys V code under a hybrid non-GPL
binary runtime hybrid license? The non-SCO code certainly was and still is under
GPL with rights retained by the contributors covered by GPL which also requires
distribution, use etc. of the source code. Am I missing something here? In
laymans terms, it looks to me like SCO is stealing from the open source
community by trying to collect license fees from THEIR work and property.
What exactly am I missing here?
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
| Further, it seems to me, layman that I am, that there are two codes, SCO code
and community code albeit allegedly comingled. Is SCO really trying to defend
the rights to their code by stealing and licensing the community code?
Welcome to Utah pj.
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:42 PM EDT |
| > What exactly am I missing here?
I am not a lawyer, but as far as I can see nothing
Unless a court somehow rules GPL software public domain, or GPL copyrighted
software to have unenforceable copyrights, and I can't see on what basis they
could, they are infringing the copyrights of all those Linux coders by
relicensing their work (in Linux the individual coders hold the copyrights on
their contributions, except for any contributions which were assigned to the
FSF).
As there are probably hundreds or thousands of coders, some of whom are
individuals, others of which are big companies, each with an individual
copyright on their work - this could get interesting.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
Further, the SCO need to comment publicly vs saving it for a judge reeks of fud,
dare I say desperation. I have yet to see an attorney with a rock solid case
waste time trying it in the media. They all generally would kill for the
favorable judgement vs public opinion. They already know the public regards them
as a dispicable bunch anyway.
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:54 PM EDT |
| > SCO code and community code albeit allegedly comingled.
And what's more SCO doesn't seem to want it un-comingled.
This is a direct quote of Darl today:
"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."
He then said various stuff (which I expect you'll see on this site soon), saying
that Red Hat won't be able to get SCO into court until 2005, etc. So he seems
to reckon that he can bank on at least 2 years before Red Hat even if find out
what was comingled, if anything, if ever.
Previously SCO said it would be hard to unentangle in various media reports, now
they say, they won't allow it.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
| Next shoe to drop would be FSF suing SCO for infringement. No?
I could very soon be persuaded to short scox. I know that is below pj's ethical
code but it sure feels good in retribution.
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 07:57 PM EDT |
snookered, I got the impression previously that you were more sympathetic to SCO
than your last post suggests. Did you change your mind? If so, what changed
it?
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 08:05 PM EDT |
scuse me, FSF suing SCO for improper or illegal distribution of legitimately
GPL'd community code. Doesn't the GPL require SCO itself to remove any specious
code it knows of prior to distributing and properly GPL'd code. Does the GPL
require SCO to remove it's very own contested code?
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 08:07 PM EDT |
| I came into this attempting objectivity. pj's site is not my only source of info
but stuff is stuff regardless of where you get it from.
I also try to flush out arguments by doing the devils advocate thing. Of course
this is not the site to be posting the above arguments. All I'll get here is
cheerleading. Sorry.
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 08:20 PM EDT |
| Isn't the SCO binary license on the community code, subsequent to, inferior to,
etc. the original GPL umbrella on the non-SCO code? So aren't they bound by
that?
Seems like SCO's continued distribution of Linux and their binary license is a
litigators holiday.
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 08:22 PM EDT |
| While it seems pretty obvious which side of the fence this site is on, I don't
think you have to have to agree with everything said on the site, I know I
don't.
Actually I'd like to see more debate in the comments area, provided they're
informed intelligent debates, rather than the kind of stuff you see on some
other boards.
I got no moral objection to shorting their stock, but I'd note that it swings
around wildly whenever Darl opens his mouth.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 08:50 PM EDT |
| Check this out
A message entitled
"Re: Linux Users $699 License Fee is Now Due and Enforceable"
was posted today to a number of newsgroups including
misc.legal.computing
comp.os.linux.setup
(and possibly others not yet indexed by google, or who cancelled or
cancel-botted the post)
The post comes from somebody identifying themselves as
"Santa_Cruz_Operation_Legal_Dept" although I have some doubts whether it was
posted by SCO
http://groups.
google.com/groups?q=Linux+Users+%24699+License+Fee+is+Now+Due+and+Enforceable&hl
=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&filter=0
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 09:01 PM EDT |
I'd like to suggest that everyone avoid being drawn into discussions by those
who appear to have an unpleasant agenda.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 09:31 PM EDT |
I'm not certain there *can* be intelligent or, especially, informed debate on
this because there is virtually/really no information to support SCO on except
their say so and a few other questionable analysts. And that's the problem.
I suppose you could argue that SCO IP is in Linux and discuss what the options
are from that point of view. Assuming that, I really can't see how getting SCO
IP in Linux, even if done intentionally by IBM, would give SCO any sort of
control over Linux. Any trade secrets are blown and SCO has to get their value
from IBM. SCO will have to identifiy what is theirs and it will be removed and
Linux will continue. Even if it has to be done the hard way and have everyone
except SCO claim their code, it will still get done. Also, SCO doesn't appear
have patents on this stuff so they can't stop a re-implementation of, say, JFS,
RCU and SMP.
On another note is occurs to me that SCO knows it doesn't have a good case
because what company that stood to gain 3 billion dollars would seek to delay
that gain?
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
pj, do you have any background on what course the company that just sued
microsoft for IP infringement and won took? Perhaps we could gain some
insight on how a company with a real IP claim behaves.
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 09:43 PM EDT |
| I'm just your typical non-lawyer layperson trying to understand the issues.
I think my point is I have to read anything that I would believe to be a
compelling argument on the pro-SCO side, that I would find compelling.
However if there are such arguments, I would like to know about them.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 09:45 PM EDT |
| And here is my open letter to Darl McBride:
In a press conference today, you made the following comment:
"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...That makes no sense"
In actual fact, what makes no sense is that Red Hat, or any other Linux
developer, should be barred from removing code from Linux that YOU say infringes
on your copyrights.
Either there is SCO code in Linux, or there isn't. If there is, the Linux
community has EVERY right to demand that you reveal what that code is, so that
they can remove it from Linux. You do not have the legal power, nor the moral
imperative, to dictate whether your code remains in Linux or not: it is not your
decision to make, because you do not own the Linux source code, nor do you hold
the copyrights to the vast majority of it (if indeed you hold the copyrights to
ANY of it, which you have yet to prove in a court of law--the ONLY court that
actually matters, notwithstanding your appalling antics in the court of public
opinion).
The source code of Linux has been released under the GPL, meaning anyone has the
right to copy, modify and distribute it. This includes the right to REMOVE code
from a distribution as well as to ADD code. Even if you did not intend YOUR
code to be released under the GPL, EVERYONE ELSE DID. You cannot therefore
legally compel anyone to keep your code in a distribution of Linux, simply so
that you can demand that every Linux user purchase a SCO Intellectual Property
license.
Unless you are acting on amateurish legal advice, you know as well as the Linux
community does that the best you can hope for is a court order that your code be
removed from all Linux distributions. You will not be able to convince a judge
that your code should remain in Linux so that you can collect royalties from it,
since you don't own the copyrights on the rest of Linux, and therefore have no
say in how the rest of the Linux code base be used.
Ultimately the Free Software and Open Source community will prevail, as the GPL
has the full weight of copyright to back up the rights that it confers upon
users and developers. You will not be able to convince a judge that, on one
hand, your copyrights must be enforced, while on the other hand, the copyrights
of others cannot.
On a personal note, I would implore you to stop the unwarranted slander against
Linux, the GPL, and the Free Software and Open Source movement. Such comments
are unprofessional and unbecoming of an executive of any company. The suit
brought against SCO by Red Hat should NOT come as a suprise, because it merely
seeks to stop you and other executives of SCO from shooting their mouths off
before anything has been proven in a court of law.
The simple fact is that your actions over the past few months have brought the
entire Linux community together against you. Nobody wants SCO code in
Linux--they never did, and any belief to the contrary is pure vanity on your
part.
If you do not reveal the SCO code that is in Linux soon, then I fully expect the
Linux community to simply act pre-emptively, by excising all code that you have
publicly claimed to own (JFS, NUMA and the like), and writing clean, untainted
replacements from scratch. Mark my words, this will happen with impressive
speed. If you believe you can drag this drama out for years while collecting
licencing fees from Linux users, you have a rude awakening in store for you.
Linux 2.6 will be untainted by unworthy SCO code, with or without your help.
Your sincerely,
Philip Stephens
Philip Stephens[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 09:48 PM EDT |
I just noticed the email address on the misc.legal.computing newsgroup post.
Based on that, I do not think these were from SCO.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 09:59 PM EDT |
Well written and well thought. Do I understand that none of the other Linux
distributors, i.e. Mandrake
and Suse are implicated in SCO's plans? If SCO does manage to stop me from
using Linux then I'll go to
BSD. It'll take me a bit to handle that, but I'm not going to their product or
back to Microsoft.
Don Watkins[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
| The $699 and the binary license was the deal killer for me. I've been relatively
confident that sys-V code is actually in Linux and probably improperly. Today's
monologue indicates that the proof that IBM did it is fairly weak so they're
also taking swipes at the community-at-large and open source in general under
some form of conspiracy theory. I had no problem with them defending their
legitimate rights but they should have stuck to that original theme. I was not
convinced that a judge or jury would be persuaded that prior SCO distributions
of Linux by SCO or others waived those rights or placed their stolen property
under the GPL. Now however, the binary run-time license and fees is a grave
departure from that theme. Objectively speaking, it appears that they are
bungling badley by not respecting the legitimate GPL rights of the legitimate
non-unix linux contributors. There's plenty of unclean hands to go around, but
SCO's just got real grimy. A flaw in their logic seems to lie in their
comparison to the RIAA. RIAA has rights and the sharers had none. In this case
it appears that SCO and the sharers both retain rights.
The language of the various licenses and contracts will likely require complete
segregation. I think SCO is also correct in suggesting that excising their
proprietary code will by nature reveal their IP secrets presently hidden like a
needle in a haystack. Therein lies the SCO dilemma. Thus far, they have chosen
to keep their secrets secret which also requires continued infringment upon the
GPL and the rights of others by continued contamination of legitimate code. I
suppose the court could allow some damages for their stolen property with some
allowances for the quality and significance of their code, if any. But damages
from whom? I also don't see any court allowing indefinite or continued
contamination and comingling thereby violating the rights of nearly everyone
including end users. Someone is likely going to win an injunction fairly soon
and based upon the cleanliness of the hands doctrine, I don't see it being SCO
at this point. They ain't cooperating on identifying and segregating and that's
a loser of a position imo.
Critical analysis please.
TIA.
sn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
| snookered,
Your trolling is rather obvious, and obnoxious. STFU!
D.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
| "If you do not reveal the SCO code that is in Linux soon, then I fully expect
the Linux community to simply act pre-emptively, by excising all code that you
have publicly claimed to own (JFS, NUMA and the like), and writing clean,
untainted replacements from scratch."
SCO is not going to reveal the code in question ever if they can help it. Darl
McBride even admitted it after months of various lies and rationalizations. The
idea that there may be infringing code is literally SCO's only chip.
Red Hat did not apply for a preliminary injunction which I take to mean they do
not believe they can carry the legal burden a preliminary injunction requires.
(I'm probably wrong about that.)
The question now is how can the linux community find out what the code is then
either explain why it's not SCO's or get it out.
Going back to 2.2 wouldn't work because SCO could just "realize" that there is
tainted 2.2 code there also. There is no way to write untainted code because
SCO taints it just by saying its tainted then refusing to give specific details
that can be refuted.
A court will order SCO to "put up" in 2005 or so. If we want to wait.
Somehow it may be possible to get a court to give the order sooner. I sure hope
so. We'll see what Suse, RedHat, IBM and the FSF have up their sleeves.
I certainly am nauseated by the idea of paying SCO to release the code, but
unless there is a way to get a court order or we are willing to wait until 2005
that's what we're looking at.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
Could the GPL be amended to add a dispute resolution procedure to prevent this
in the future?
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 10:33 PM EDT |
Oh and one more thing. As a group we can't go to BSD either (commercially)
because it's just as tainted as Linux for the same reason. SCO or anyone can
make any claim it wants for two years until it gets to court.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 10:34 PM EDT |
| One might be to start a new Linux version, where the copyright ownership can be
traced for every single line individually, and *nobody* who works on it works
for any company with access to System V nor has any previous access to System V
source. Make sure these positions can be proved.
If this version is claimed to be tainted, you have really solid proof it's
not.
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
| Quartermass:
An OS where noone who contributes has any previous access to any proprietary
code whose owners can do a SCO at any moment? That means not that many
prospective developers.
Starting from scratch under those conditions would be very expensive.
I think the best option is to counterattack as creatively as we can over the
next two years or until we can get the code released and try to minimize the
FUD.
Paying SCO means paying everyone who can't show their code except under an
NDA.
The two things I hope for are 1) somehow we can get the courts to force SCO to
show the code early and 2) somehow the Linux community comes up with a very
clear way to frame and explain the issue to the general community.
Groklaw is a great resource for both. Thanks again PJ.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:15 PM EDT |
Starting a new Linux version would be pointless. We'd just start hearing
different
stupid stuff like X's mother's father's brother's third child's wife's sister's
second child's babysitter's college freshman roommate works for a company with
Sys V access and passed the code to X.
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:16 PM EDT |
| r.a.
BSD would be safe as it was challenged years ago by AT&T and the issue was
settled. The early incarnation of SCO acquired the rights from Novell which had
acquired them from AT&T. Unless there are any new infractions the BSD code can
be considered clean.
CB-in-Tokyo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:24 PM EDT |
| "Unless there are any new infractions the BSD code can be considered clean."
There are new infractions. Sign my NDA and I'll show them to you.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:33 PM EDT |
Excuse my ignorance, isn't the complaint against GNU/Linux that IBM included
propietary code? If so, how could BSD be considered to be tainted?
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Mike
Henderson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:38 PM EDT |
snookered,
SCO doesn't and, by definition, can't have any "hidden" IP secrets in Linux
because
it is all available. Not knowing who owns the copyright for code doesn't stop
you from looking at and understanding that code along with any associated
methods or techniques
for doing something. The only thing that is secret is what code
SCO is laying claim to and that appears to be getting clearer (JFS, SMP, NUMA,
RCU).
Alan Pinkerton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 05 2003 @ 11:40 PM EDT |
| "If so, how could BSD be considered to be tainted?"
BSD has not just lines, but hundreds of thousands of files that belong to
[insert any company you want here. SCO will do.] and is in clear violation of
numerous laws.
If you agree not to tell anyone what I show you and that any work you do in the
future belongs to me I'll show you the violations unless I think you want to
look for some reason I don't like.
r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
r.a.
made your point. The mouse that roared?
Mike Henderson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 08:40 AM EDT |
| Folks,
If you look at the stock prices, I have the feeling that this is all not about
stealing code, GPL, free software and violation of someones IP. This seams to me
more some kind of a big financial coup. Someone fore sure is laughing at you,
while counting the Dollars.
However, we and you ... we are the customers and we decide ... and my decision
is clear.
Who the hell would be willing to pay incredible licensing fees to a company that
glared more by threatening people than by new, brilliant ideas.
If customers choose reliable, innovative, inventing companies as partners ....
SCO won't make it until 2005 :-)
This all looks like a company that does it's last, desperate breaths ...
And finally, I like to post something I found on their web site :
"SCOsource is a new business division to manage its UNIX® System
intellectual property. The charter of the new division is to create new and
innovative licensing programs to meet the changing demands of today's market and
to protect its intellectual property asset. ..."
This all looks like a professional rip off :-)
Would you, as a customer, trust a company that makes statements like they do
???
Sleep well, if you can. &greetings from Germany
zaphod[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 08:53 AM EDT |
What I believe needs to happen to counter SCOs FUD is that major corporations
file suit against SCO just like RedHat has. This would include companies like
HP, SUSE, ORACLE, NOVELL and perhaps some major users of Linux servers (say
google). McBride smirks at the fact that it will take until at least 2005 before
the RedHat case is heard. That may be true - but the knife cuts both ways. It
would take until 2007+ to hear the case against SCO from all the others (HP,
SUSE, ORACLE, etc). Thats a major drain on the company's financial resources and
it shows the world that major IT players believe that SCO is being fradulent and
are willing to put their money behind their claim. In the world of stocks that
action would hurt the most....
JohnC[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 08:55 AM EDT |
zaphod, welcome in the real world... and on GrokLaw. Feel free to take a look in
the archives, and if you have something new to tell us, don't hestitate to post
your comments. ;)
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 09:05 AM EDT |
I read somewhere that Novell wants to do their own Linux distribution now they
got Ximian. Novell seems to be on the anti-SCO side of the fence publicly. Any
thoughts on this?
quatermass[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 11:24 AM EDT |
| PJ:
I have been reading your site for the past week and I can't thank you enough for
the research you are doing. It must take a tremendous amount of time to pull
this off.
I wonder how we might gauge the actual attention being paid SCO outside of the
open source crowd. People like us who read slashdot regularly are so outraged
at SCO, and feel rightly threatened by their constant stream of lies.
I work at a company that is using linux quite a bit internally and when I talk
to some of my colleagues (mny of them programmers that work directly with linux
on a daily basis) about SCO they haven't even heard of them, let alone do they
know anything about the law suit. When I try to explain what is going on they
roll their eyes. They are not the least bit worried, and are paying the whole
sordid affair no attention whatsoever.
Perhaps such people are actually quite numerous. They might even outnumber us
10 to 1, if not more. I wonder how we might establish that fact.
Chris Marshall
Chris Marshall[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
| There is a strong band between Novell and SCO; Caldera started with several
Novell employees and Financing from Ray Noorda a former CEO of Novell. Go back
to 1995 in Network
Computing. Novell sold UNIX copyrights to SCO and still holds UNIX patents.
I think you could dig up a lot of interesting facts; enough to start your own
blog! I think pj should concentrate on other issues. :)
MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 12:00 PM EDT |
| Hello,
Just thought I'd put in my two sense here. I can't help but wonder what kind of
mental problems Mr. McBride has whenever I think about this whole thing. I mean,
come on... SCO is practically giving people an open invitation to *not* buy
their products or support them in any way. I think someone needs their sanity
checked very badly...
Garrett[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 02:29 PM EDT |
I ment to post this here originally but, the ol fingers got ahead of me. The CNet. As soon
as they develop a funding mech, your's truely will ante-up.
PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
Hmmm...most curious! Chopped the tar.gz outa my post...heheh
PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 02:48 PM EDT |
| Just come across this site, very interesting though I haven't had time to read
it all. So excuse me if these questions have been answered before. I'm a
slightly worried end-user and think answers to these questions might clarify the
situation a bit for people like me.
SCO clearly doesn't own the IP of all of Linux. If I buy a license, can I force
them to specify which Patents and Copyrights I am licensing, or am I forced to
accept the pig in a poke of unspecified 'UNIX IP'? I.e. can I force SCO to give
me details of what am I getting in exchange for my license fee? (I know they
won't _want_ to tell me.) Given that detail, I may be able to roll my own kernel
to minimize use of this IP.
If they refuse to give details, does that make the license/contract unfair in
some legal sense and thus unenforcable? (So I can keep on using Linux for
free.)
I live in the UK. Is the license just for the US? Have international aspects
been considered?
Novell just bought Ximian, and have said that the transfer of Copyrights issue
isn't settled yet. Bit like Dr. Strangelove and his uncontrollable arm. Is there
no cohesion in the Canopy Group?
Personally I don't think SCO have a legal leg to stand on, but justice and the
law have always had an uneasy relationship.
Cheers,
Chris.
P.S. I've read the disclaimer.
Chris Priest[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 03:26 PM EDT |
| This is a repost of PhilTR's comment, with properly formatted links.
AHEM:<P/>
-----[Repost]-----<P/>
I ment to post this here originally but, the ol fingers got ahead of me. The Open Source and Industry Association is about to
launch. They will do lobbying and advocacy. They're looking for members. There
is an article about them on CNet. As soon
as they develop a funding mech, your's truely will ante-up.
Paul[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
| Chris wrote " If I buy a license, can I force them to speci ..."
Once they have your money you have ZERO power. (this does NOT mean you should
call them and offer money on condition ... )
Unless you got one of their form letters why do you want anything to do with
them?
I'm not a lawyer, don't take this as legal advice.
It seems to be the safest thing is to ignore them. If SCO don't know who you
are,
KEEP IT THAT WAY.
The instant they find out you're scared, YOU ARE TOAST. Or Croissant, or
English Muffins <insert appropriate metaphor>
If you are REALLY concerned, this applies to you EXPONENTIALLY.
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
Ty, Paul! :o)
PhilTR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2003 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
| Hi Chris and welcome, and hi to all. I am sorry that I've been so busy the
last few days, I just haven't been able to keep up with comments. I'm not
ignoring your questions and comments, but Groklaw has taken off in such a way
that I had a choice: work on content and research, and type, type, type the
transcript, and handle the email, or talk to everyone here. Talking to you is
more fun, especially compared to the typing part, but eventually you'd get bored
without new material. And anyway, I'm on a quest. : ) Because this is an
after-work project, I am a bit low on time for Groklaw and when a lot of news
happens, I have to focus. I really like reading what almost everyone writes.
And I hope to get back to being able to do so with time.
What that means is if you have anything really urgent, please email me instead.
And remember, I can't give anyone legal advice. Neither can you, unless you are
an attorney. I know you know that, but I'm just stressing. That's not the
purpose here. My purpose is to show you how to find the answers to your
questions by providing raw materials that will help you, to follow the case
from start to finish, and to provide anti-FUD. I think that's enough. And have
fun. That's a goal too. Legal questions, well, hey, pay a lawyer if you need
an answer to a legal question. Otherwise, if it's just curiosity, there's a
road map here, which will get more and more complete as we move along, I hope.
Opinions that are clearly just that are fine, as long as everyone is clear that
they aren't legal opinions.
I hope you continue to enjoy Groklaw and that you continue to provide research
materials. It's been amazing.
My preference on comments is that we maintain the tone we've pretty much had so
far, which is pleasant and not mean-spirited, and facts that are reliable and
true, to the best of our ability, as opposed to rumors. I think that's the way
we can be most effective, effective and fair. Even to you know who.
Oh. Yeah. Please don't feed any trolls, and be discerning. But I see you
guys already have a clue.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2003 @ 03:51 AM EDT |
| I have some news from the German Website of SuSE.
1) Probably not too new : SuSE supports Red Hat against SCO
2) http://www.suse.de/de/company/press/press_releases/archive03/live_sco.html
This article is in German, I try to translate and summarize the essentials.
As you have already recognized, the German Website of SCO (www.sco.de) does not
mention one word about the SCO campaign and the IP "issue". Maybe the article
explains why :
The Article is called : "Linux LIVE Alliance : SCO license fee requests has no
basis"
The Article states, that SCO in Germany has clearly stated to Mr. Riek from LIVE
Alliance an non-disclosure agreement to NOT further distribute their claims in
Germany ....
MAybe someone can translate the whole thing :-)
As we, in whole Europe, have different and more strict laws about competition, I
think SCO cannot start the same campaign in Europe.
Hope this was interesting enough to you ...
zaphod[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 09 2003 @ 11:09 AM EDT |
| zaphod,
That was interesting enough indeed. Any urls you have, or anyone else, on
European or any
other country's laws and their relationship to the SCO story would be very much
appreciated.
pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
