|
|
| "SCO Has Had an Amazing Year" - Indeed |
 |
|
Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:43 AM EDT
|
The SCO Group, like Old Faithful, has burst forth with yet another
press release. They plan on taking the SCO Show on the road to a city near some of
you. They would like to share with you "the latest SCO technology
advancements and business solutions". It's free, in case you were not
feeling enthusiastic enough to pay.
Wait a sec. Share with us their business solutions? Wasn't
Darl just asking for us to come up one of those for him?
Judging from
a cursory reading of his 10Q, I'd say he
could use one within about 12 months: During recent
quarters, we have experienced a decline in our product and services
revenue primarily attributed to the worldwide economic slowdown, lower
information technology spending and increased competition in the
operating system market. However, we have implemented cost reduction
measures to decrease personnel and excess facilities costs and have
significantly reduced our overall operating expenses. These measures,
combined with revenue of $15,530,000 from our SCOsource licensing
initiative, have resulted in the first two profitable quarters in our
history. Maybe they heard from their RIAA friends that
musicians make the bulk of their money on tour, so they thought they'd
imitate that part of RIAA's repetoire, as they diligently do their
imitation of their legal strategy. And as for technical
solutions, I wonder what they have to offer? Some really old code and
not a lot of employees to make it better, and a collective cold
shoulder, as in dry ice, from the entire world of open source/free
software programmers. NASA, we have a problem.
They've had an amazing year, says their Senior VP marketroid, Chris Sontag, and I
think here, at least, we have found common ground. But here's their
spin: "We've enjoyed record earnings during the past two
quarters, been one of the top performing stocks on the NASDAQ, been a
pioneer in intellectual property protection and announced major
technological advancements in both our UNIX and SCOx product
initiatives. Because we've made these landmark accomplishments in a
struggling economy, the future continues to look extremely bright for
SCO and its partners. We're excited to showcase the company and our
technologies at this year's worldwide City-to-City Tour. I
guess comedians do go on tour too, so, hey, why not? Knock yourselves
out. Please. Nah, just horsing around. Of course, their buddy
Microsoft is bailing them out, because they really need that license
from SCO very badly to run their business: The amount that
we receive from any such licensee will generally depend on the license
rights that the licensee previously held and the amount and level of our
intellectual property the licensee desires to license. The two
licensing agreements signed by us to date resulted in revenue of
$8,250,000 during the April 30, 2003 quarter and $7,280,000 during the
July 31, 2003 quarter. The license agreement with Sun provides for an
additional $2,500,000 to be paid to us by November 2003. On July 31,
2003, Microsoft exercised an option to acquire expanded licensing
rights. Upon delivery, we expect to recognize additional revenue
related to this option. So at least at the end of July,
Microsoft apparently deemed value in the license and has ponied up some more dough.
I am shocked, shocked. Actually, I am, but I'm not surprised. What is
of greatest interest to me is that if Microsoft had waited just a little week or so,
this detail could have been kept a secret until the next quarterly
filing. Evidently, they don't care if we know about their affiliation with
the SCO Show. So be it.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:05 AM EDT |
| SCO Show reminds me of circus. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:24 AM EDT |
"We've enjoyed record earnings during the past two quarters..." --
Jeff Hunsacker
Jeff, I hate to tell you this, but, well, record earnings are not that hard to
achieve when you've never had any. I mean, beating a baseline of zero is just
not that impressive.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: chris on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:27 AM EDT |
I'm gonna check with my local LUGs and see if any of them are making the trip
to St. Louis to "attend" this event.
Hey, maybe we should go to their shows and pass out Linux CD's! RedHat Linux
even![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- redhat handouts - Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 08:46 AM EDT
- redhat handouts - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:13 AM EDT
- I do, I do! - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:56 AM EDT
- I do, I do! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:04 PM EDT
- redhat handouts - Authored by: chris on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:25 AM EDT
- redhat handouts - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:40 PM EDT
- "SCO Has Had an Amazing Year" - Indeed - Authored by: fstanchina on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:00 AM EDT
- "SCO Has Had an Amazing Year" - Indeed - Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- Wear RED hats if you go - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:47 PM EDT
- "SCO Has Had an Amazing Year" - Indeed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:40 PM EDT
- "SCO Has Had an Amazing Year" - Indeed - Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:49 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:41 AM EDT |
"On July 31, 2003, Microsoft exercised an option to acquire expanded
licensing rights. Upon delivery, we expect to recognize additional revenue
related to this option." -- SCO 10-Q
July 31st, 2003? Hmm, had MS not ponied up that dough, SCO wouldn't have shown
profits for the quarter. This is massively important for two reasons:
a) Without showing profits, the stock would likely go down.
b) Without showing profits, Darl would have to start all over again to get his 4
quarter "PROFIT!" bonus.
I've never been big on the tin-foil hat theories, but that *must* have been
coordinated between MS and SCO for the sole purpose of shoring up SCO's revenue
in time to show profits in the most recent quarter. Maybe it's time someone
sent Judge Kollar-Kotelly an e-mail, kindly pointing her to our site for
evidence of Microsoft's continuing abuses of its monopoly position.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:46 AM EDT |
Its pretty sick and twisted that such obvious criminal behaviour on the part of
SCO and MS is allowed to continue. The system fails again.
In light of the 10Q evidence, I'd say there can now be no resolution between
SCO and the Open Source community short of McBride and his cronies getting
serious prison time in addition to new antitrust suits against Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:52 AM EDT |
SCO, "...a pioneer in intellectual property protection..." -- Jeff
Hunsucker
I'm trying to respond to this statement, but I'm so flabbergasted that I can
think of nothing to say.
Wow, so this is what it feels like to be left speechless.
Jeff, I'm impressed. No one has ever left me speechless before. Well, maybe a
few girlfriends, but we needn't go there...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:53 AM EDT |
"Upon delivery, we expect to recognize additional revenue related to this
option."
Translation: Upon delivery, we expect to be paid. (Duh. But now with the typical
McBride spin to allude to possible revenue from this source in future quarters,
especially if read quickly!)
Even in SEC filings he can't speak plainly. I hate corporate America.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 08:06 AM EDT |
Here is an article that point out the connection between the Gartner Group and
MS. Seems the Bill and Steve own controlling interest in the Gartner Group.
http://rootprompt.org/article.php3?article=5586
The pertenate quote
"That seems to escape the wonder boys of Redmond. In fact, it seems to
have caused them a great deal of anger. The very fact that people might even be
meeting somewhere without them has caused them much grief. They cannot stand the
fact that they are not being talked about everywhere by everyone. They will do
anything to change that, as is evidenced by the fact that they will send out
people like the Gartner Group, which Silver Lake Partners owns a 46.1%
controlling interest in by the way, the C|Net and ZDNet crews, the Yankee Group
and even our old pal and frequent distraction, Mr. Enderle, out to write
articles critical of free software and open source.
In case you have never heard of the Silver Lake Partners, they are founded by
people like Bill and Melinda Gates, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Steve Ballmer
(and I bet, Scoot McNealy, though I am not certain of that). Now, if these
people own 46.1% of the voting stock for an analysts firm, can you really trust
what they have to say? That is like saying that Halliburton won that $7 Billion
no-bid contract in Iraq based upon a free market economy. It just doesn't wash
out in the truth cycle. In fact, it is transparently suspect and only the
shouting of analysts seems to grow louder with every rock overturned and the
bugs scattering for cover."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Downing on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 08:41 AM EDT |
I'm flabbergasted to, and for the following, as well as the other comments
made:
"...been a pioneer in intellectual property protection and announced major
technological advancements in both our UNIX and SCOx product
initiatives."
Seems to me that most of these "product initiatives" are just
bundling Open Source products with their own. That's some IP protection
they've got going!
td
---
Thomas Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
I just signed up for the SCO Show in Newark, but had to supply a company name
and title. So, I'm now, unofficially, the CEO of ClosedCourse Technologies.
Don't tell unemployment.
Is anyone else going to be there?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I'll be there - Authored by: mec on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 02:18 PM EDT
- I'll be there - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:34 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
It seems to me that MS & allies might be playing a long shot with their
"investment" in TSG. According to TSG, MS's license agreement
expands with every payment: "Microsoft exercised an option to acquire
expanded licensing rights. Upon delivery, we expect to recognize additional
revenue related to this option." Thus, whatever IP TSG gets out of their
lawsuite, likely belongs to MS via the license agreements. MS is free to use it
without so much as a "by your leave" for the copyright holders -- it
is called trump in bridge, a card game Mr. Gates plays with Mr. Buffet. Can you
you imagine what Mr. McBride might agree to for $'s in the fourth quarter to
show a profit?
Joe Bystander
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:49 AM EDT |
i know that i am seriously lacking in stock market knowledge but please explain
to me how the 10Q sent the stock soaring
$20.40
br3n totally confused and feeling like i am missing something
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:57 AM EDT |
| http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1271312,00.asp [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:01 AM EDT |
Dear Mr. McBride,
This letter comes to you from a group in the open source/free software
community. Because you addressed your letter to our community-at-
large, we thought we should answer you ourselves, particularly because
our community isn't organized hierarchically in the way a corporation is,
and it therefore really has no CEO or leader in that sense, except Linus
Torvalds in the case of the Linux kernel code and Richard Stallman in the
case of the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation. All in the
community contribute something, based on our interest and abilities. We
have worked on this group letter together on the website Groklaw, which
is an open source research site, currently dedicated to covering the SCO
case.
Quite a few in our group are computer engineers, including some
contributors to the Linux kernel. Others are owners of Linux businesses
or executives or employees of Linux businesses. A few are lawyers, one
is a paralegal, one is a stockbroker, at least one is a physicist, one is a
retired policeman, another is a retired truck driver, others are in or have
been in the military, and some work or have worked in government. We
have experienced UNIX programmers in our midst, too, who personally
witnessed the history of UNIX since its inception and know your software
well. One of us is a grandmother who tried GNU/Linux all on her own
and fell in love with the software. We are a large, international, and
varied group, which is appropriate because GNU/Linux is both
developed and used worldwide, and the community to which you
directed your letter is global and diverse.
VIOLATIONS OF THE GPL & COPYRIGHT LAW
Our first purpose in writing to you is to put you on notice that we believe
you are in violation of the General Public License, the GPL, in at least two
ways:
1. you have continued to distribute Linux from your web site despite
your allegations that it contains infringing code, and
2. at the same time, you are attempting to compel purchase of "Linux
Intellectual Property" licenses for binary-only use, under terms which are
incompatible with distribution of GPL'd code under that license.
Any violation of the terms of the GPL deprives you of the right to
distribute that GPL'd code. Such a course puts you in the unhappy
position then of violating the copyrights of the Linux kernel authors.
You are not allowed to distribute their code at all under copyright law
without their permission, permission which they have chosen to grant
only by means of the GPL. Releasing code under the GPL does not mean
it has gone into the public domain. The authors retain their copyrights.
INVOICES WILL PROVOKE LEGAL ACTIONS
With regard to the invoices you say you will mail out by October 15, it is
our opinion that any such action on your part will leave you open to civil
lawsuits under federal and state consumer protection laws, as well as
criminal penalties if state and federal agencies, attorneys general, and
district attorneys step in. For just one example of state consumer
protection laws, we suggest that you read New York's General Business
Law, Sections 349 and 350. Kernel coders additionally have copyright
law to rely on to protect their rights. Linux businesses may decide to
utilize trade libel laws.
You may be assured that should we receive invoices, we will initiate civil
actions using anti-fraud and consumer protection statutes wherever we
live, as appropriate to our respective circumstances. We will also contact
our state attorneys general requesting that they seek criminal as well as
civil penalties against you, in addition to injunctive relief. We also will
file complaints with the FTC and other federal and state agencies, as
appropriate. Some have already sent letters to legislators in their
respective states and in Washington, DC.
We purchased Linux in good faith, and we chose it precisely because it is
released under the GPL. We do not accept your attempt to charge us a
second time for a product we already bought and paid for, most of us
from vendors other than yourself, and we accept no other license for
Linux than the GPL.
WE DO BELIEVE IN COPYRIGHT LAW
Despite the false impression your letter paints of us, that we are a
lawless bunch that doesn't believe in copyright, we warn you that we do
believe in copyright law. It is the foundation on which the GPL is built. If
Linux programmers didn't believe in copyright, they would have released
their software into the public domain instead of choosing the GPL.
We demand that you respect the Linux kernel authors' copyrights, as
well as the particular license they chose to use, the GPL. You are
hypocritically asking others to respect your copyrights and licenses while
violating the identical rights of others. The protections of copyright law
accrue to their benefit as well as to you. We believe we all should be
law-abiding.
NO PROOF OF ANY INFRINGING CODE
You have proven no infringing code. We are aware of absolutely none. If
you showed the code and it were proven to be infringing, it would be
immediately removed. Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and FSF's
attorney, Eben Moglen, each told you so repeatedly, as men of honor.
You refuse to let that happen. Why? We believe it's because there is no
infringing code.
Your UNIX business is declining, as your recently filed 10Q makes clear.
Linux, on the other hand, has been growing. If you are refusing to show
the code to prevent its removal because you wish to charge a kind of
perpetual toll by riding on the coattails of the more successful Linux
software, that is a shameful and a hopeless dream. You cannot compel
Linux to retain your code, even if any infringing code existed. An alleged
infringer has the right to remove any infringing code and cannot be
forced to continue to use it.
Even more shameful would be to try to destroy or, worse, co-opt the
labor of thousands of good-hearted volunteers, who did not volunteer to
work for you and do not wish to be exploited as free labor by you for
your monetary gain.
If you are concerned about evidence being removed before trial, that is a
needless concern, because the Linux source code is and always will be
publicly available for the court to review at each stage of its
development. Refusing to mitigate your damages is far more likely to
cause you legal harm than removing any allegedly infringing code.
Secrecy is not an option under copyright law. You can't make allegations
of copyright infringement and then refuse to offer proof.
We don't need or want your legacy UNIX code, if it exists in Linux, which
we doubt. It would be a violation of the GPL to accept proprietary code
into the kernel. If it exists, we want it out as badly as you do, perhaps
more so, because we believe in the GPL. Just because people won't walk
through your front door to buy your software, you have no right to
compel them to pay through the backdoor for what they did not
voluntarily choose to buy. You must, therefore, try to find a business
model without our compelled participation.
Any allegations you have made against IBM are between the two of you,
being a contractual dispute to which we are not a party. If you have any
valid contractual claims, they will be settled in a court of law, but your
remedies lie with IBM and IBM alone, not with Linux users.
IDENTICAL BUT LEGAL -- THE BSD CONNECTION
Since the beginning of the year, you have claimed there is infringing
code taken from your version of UNIX and illegally donated to Linux, but
when your two examples were shown at SCOForum, neither proved your
case. For six months, we listened to analysts tell us that the code looked
identical. But what they, and you, forgot to find out is where the code
came from, to whom it now belongs, and who is allowed to use it.
There is BSD code in Linux which is legally there, and it will, of course,
be identical to or similar to BSD code in your software. The BSDi lawsuit
revealed that the AT&T codebase includes a great deal of BSD code.
Caldera itself also later released "Ancient UNIX" code under a
BSD-like
license. Consequently the SysV codebase is full of code that SCO does
not own and/or that both SCO and the open source/free software
community are legally allowed to use.
POLICING CODE
We wish to point out that it took only about a day for the code shown at
SCOForum to be identified by members of the open source community.
If we do not police code effectively, as you claim, why were they able to
so quickly identify the code? You, in contrast, obviously had no idea
where that code came from, or who it belonged to, or you surely would
not have used it to attempt to prove "infringement" of
"your" code. The
evidence indicates it is your due diligence system that is broken, not
ours.
If the legal departments of corporations represent to Linus Torvalds that
they have ownership rights to code they wish to donate, what further do
you feel should be done? Do you have steps in place to prevent GPL code
from being improperly inserted into your proprietary software? Would
you be willing to allow us to check for such violations? We particularly
wish to check your Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) code. We suspect that
there may be GPL code taken from the Linux kernel and used in LKP
without authorization.
Any proprietary software company is able to police its own code in Linux
by checking the Linux source code. The Linux kernel is open to the
public. If you see any code that you believe is yours, you have only to
speak up, and it would be immediately removed, upon confirmation that
it is infringing. That is what you should have done. It's a superior feature
in the open source method that all you need to do is your own due
diligence. This is far greater protection than your proprietary system
provides, where code can be stolen and hidden and no one can check for
it, short of a lawsuit.
And speaking of broken systems, how could it happen that while
working with the Linux kernel code for years -- and your company did
-- you didn't notice any infringing code back then? And how do you
explain that you released the allegedly infringing code in your own
distribution of Linux for years without noticing it was in there? If any
infringing code really existed, and you failed to notice it for years,
despite the Linux source code being freely available, it does not reflect
well on your due diligence or the proprietary model of policing code you
falsely purport is superior to the open source method.
INDEMNIFICATION
Anyone even dreaming of sneaking proprietary software code into Linux
knows he will be found out quickly and identified by name. That is your
indemnification and your protection. We believe our system is far more
exacting and precise than your own.
Speaking of indemnification, we note that the license you propose
selling does not offer indemnification from lawsuits brought by other
companies.
Proprietary software companies regularly sue each other for IP violations.
Microsoft alone has been found guilty recently in several cases, but
GNU/Linux has never even been sued for any IP claim since its
beginnings in the mid-80s, let alone been found guilty of such. That
record speaks volumes as to which method does a better job of policing
code, and it reveals that your call for indemnification is, to put it bluntly,
FUD.
WE OBEY THE LAW
With regard to your allegations of having experienced a DDoS attack and
your request that we police the community, your request is like us
asking you to police Microsoft better, to make sure it never again breaks
antitrust law or never again violates anyone's patent or copyright.
Just because you are both proprietary software companies, it doesn't
follow that you can control what they do or are appropriately criticized
for, or appropriately accused of condoning, their actions. Whether it is
individuals or companies that break the law, it is wrong, but it reflects
only on the individual perpetrator.
There is a legal process for such matters. We don't accept as established
fact that there was an attack. Our doubt is based on the fact that your
employees have been quoted as saying that reports of an attack were
untrue and that you took your servers down for maintenance and had
trouble getting them back up again. If the information your employees
and your ISP provided was false and there was an attack, we naturally
abhor such behavior. Your implying that we would feel otherwise is
deeply offensive.
We would think, though, that a tech company that sells web services
software would know how to handle a DDoS attack, if that is really what
happened to you. Most companies do, without being brought to their
knees for a week. We are glad that you say you have since learned the
technical steps you can take to protect yourself better in the future.
WHO MAKES UP THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY?
Kindly reevaluate your concept of who makes up our community. Your
letter attempted to portray as as countercultural, but the open source/
free software community today is mainstream, and it includes not only
IBM, but many other successful businesses that distribute and use GNU/
Linux software, including Red Hat, Merrill Lynch, Verisign, Dell, Amazon,
Google, Dreamworks, the US Air Force, Los Alamos National Laboratory,
the US Department of Defense, and many governments and
governmental agencies, including, by the way, the town of St. George,
Utah.
You can read the entire list at Linux International's Linux Success Stories
page. The Linux Documentation Project also has such a page, called
Powered by Linux!. The Linux Counter lists 18 million users of GNU/
Linux as of Sunday, September 13, and they only count those that sign
up or can be otherwise verified.
With so many businesses and so many users switching to our software,
we must be doing something right.
LINUX ALREADY HAS A BUSINESS MODEL
Your inability to make your Linux business a success, while unfortunate
for you, parallels an inability to make your UNIX business a success.
Perhaps the problem isn't Linux or the GPL or the open source business
model.
Economist Amy Wohl is of the opinion that "The Open Source
Community Has a Business Model" and one that is successful. Ms. Wohl
is an analyst who has been covering IT for nearly 30 years and who
currently comments on the commercialization of new and emerging
technology. Here are her comments, which we include with her kind
permission:
"It is lovely to see the Open Source community generate the intellectual
capital to crush SCO's increasingly foolish (and confused) arguments. In
some sense, it is a real example of the power of both the Internet as an
information exchange mechanism and Open Source as its own business
model.
"As an economist, let me assure you that Open Source has a business
model. It simply isn't one that a traditional company like SCO, which
expects to be paid for code, can figure out. There are still lots of
companies that can charge for code, but only when the code they are
offering is valued by customers because it is unique or convenient or
offers other recognized value. Other companies (IBM is a good example)
charge for their Linux-compatible middleware code, but honor the Open
Source community by supporting it with technical and financial
assistance and by strongly supporting the open standards that permit
customers to choose to use Open Source code when they prefer it and
purchased code when they find it, for whatever reason, more valuable.
Then, as many posters have noted, IBM extends its business model into
the future by providing services to help customers plan, design,
implement, and customize whatever combinations of hardware, open
source, and proprietary code the customer prefers.
"That is the new business model and it seems to be a very successful
one."
We suggest that you ask your attorneys to explain the Lesser General
Public License (LGPL) to you. If they aren't experts, contact the Free
Software Foundation, and they can help you. I think you will find that it
is exactly what you need to thrive in business and still legally use GPL
code, if you insist on sticking with your old-fashioned proprietary
software business model. Companies like MySQL successfully distribute
simultaneously under two licenses, and that is acceptable under the GPL.
By the way, it is not a violation of the GPL to sell software released under
that license.The "free" in free software means freedom, not that we
can
get it gratis. Many of us have paid for our free software, simply because
it's more convenient or as a way to say thank you to the wonderful folks
who wrote it and shared it with the world. If you're looking for a
successful business model, there's nothing like a satisfied customer.
That business model is tried and true.
We have prepared a research document with links to evidence
supporting our assertions and other resources you may find helpful,
such as links to information about the GPL and how it works, which the
Inquirer is making available online at . We hope it will help you to
understand our position better and that it will prove a useful resource to
you and to others interested in this case.
Thank you for writing to us. We appreciate the opportunity to answer.
Sincerely,
Members of The Open Source/Free Software Community at Groklaw
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Draft 3 - Authored by: JonB on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:27 AM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:49 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:36 AM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:40 AM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:43 AM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:55 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:53 AM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: demona on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:25 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:29 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: J.F. on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: BC on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:38 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:45 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: JonB on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 04:13 AM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Lee on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:58 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:54 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Lee on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:15 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Newsome on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 02:13 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:58 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: RoQ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:31 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: stanmuffin on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:53 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: fava on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 02:26 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:41 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: J.F. on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 06:48 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: fava on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:23 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: AdamBaker on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:46 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: shevek on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:48 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:57 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 19 2003 @ 10:27 AM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:38 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:26 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:03 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:07 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Harry Clayton on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:20 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:23 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: pik on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:45 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:21 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:57 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:48 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 02:23 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: inc_x on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:24 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:28 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 08:48 PM EDT
- Thoughts on "The BSD Connection" - Authored by: GenWer on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 03:29 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Christian on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:10 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:36 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: mec on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:01 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Christian on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:16 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Nathan Hand on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:52 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: archiesteel on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:22 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: Christian on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:36 PM EDT
- Draft 3 - Authored by: JonB on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:07 PM EDT
- Draft 3/ International aspect - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 08:30 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:09 AM EDT |
New thought, new suggestion
"you've offered to show the code under NDA and now we have a concrete
example of why your offer is of extremely dubious value. If Jay Schulist had
signed your contract, under some interpretations of your contract he could be
forever barred from working on the BPF code that he himself authored. Your NDA
is poison masking as candy."
A comment on SCO's NDA show.
Under SCO's NDA, as I understand it, if Jay Schulist had signed up for SCO's
show, he would never again be able to work on his own code.
(these are the clauses that have the effect 'you must keep all materials shown
confidential even if you have been exposed to it before, even if it exists in
the public already' )
Those clauses could be interpreted to render Schulist subject to breach of
contract lawsuits if he ever bugfixed the BPF code.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:29 AM EDT |
| Microsoft exercised an option to acquire expanded licensing rights.
So does this mean all open source programs are for "sale" by SCO to
Microsoft?
"Samba on Windows" now there is a joke on MS.
We need to realise
that SCO is stealing all programs made by anyone. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:33 PM EDT |
Lookin' good! I agree with most of the comments above especially about the
quote from the economist. Great support but the tonecalls her objectivity into
question.
Also I would remove the reference to M$ from the para. relating to SCo being
held accountable fro M$ actions. Not a good example and I believe it make us
look like MS hating "counter revolutionaries" While I agree the MS
connection is there...this letter is about OSS and SCO NOT M$
Just a thought!
EXCELLENT work!
BigTex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 12:42 PM EDT |
I found a couple articles today that were somewhat positive. Even George Weiss
agreed that SCO screwed the pouch.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1271312,00.asp
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31599.html
Alex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
Well I just got this in my tech
news:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=581&ncid=581&e=3&u=/nm/20
030917/tc_nm/tech_affiliatedcomputer_dc
And wouldn't it be nice to see Darl and
Co. get the same down the line?
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:40 PM EDT |
http://www.harktheherald.com/article.php?sid=95051&mode=thread&order=0
SCO, which said it never threatened to sue Red Hat, says Red Hat's real motive
for suing is to protect the free, but allegedly improper, distribution of Linux
operating systems that contains SCO-controlled source codes.
...
That's because Red Hat, unlike IBM, has "never had any license from SCO
providing access to SCO's trade secrets or other confidential information, and
to SCO's knowledge, has not stolen or misappropriated any of SCO's trade
secrets or other confidential information," SCO said.
...
SCO said Red Hat's fears were premature because any further action by SCO would
depend largely on the outcome of its lawsuit with IBM.
"We've had issues with Linux, but never attacked Red Hat," said SCO
spokesman Blake Stowell. "Unlike commercial end-users, Red Hat is a Linux
distributor and therefore won't have to pay license fees."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Grim Reaper on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:43 PM EDT |
What is with HP sponsoring all these SCO events? Is HP the secret licensee?
http://www.sco.com/partners/city_to_city/oct2003
What are they thinking?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
"Success! Delaware courthouse trip
by: poncewattle (44/M/USA) 09/17/03 12:19 pm
Msg: 43019 of 43074
I read the entire motion to dismiss. First some disclaimers, I have no legal
training, I copied what I thought was most relevant but could have made
mistakes, don't consider this legal or investment advice, etc, etc. Also, Nigel
Poncewattle is an alias simply to avoid net kooks. Not meant to defraud or
deceive. If anyone has a legit reason for my real identity, email
poncewattle@yahoo.com
This will be a quickie summary for now, more later
Only found a motion to dismiss, no answers to charges except a statement that
SCO has no parent corporation and that no corporation owns more than 10% of
their stock.
Two arguments mainly. On counts 3 to 8, Lanham Act, it doesn't apply because
that act only covers commercial advertising or promotion. Discussion about legal
matters falls under constitutional protected free speech rights.
On counts 1 thru 2, the interesting bit (to me) is, and I quote "Redhat
has never had a license from SCO providing access to SCO's trade secrets or
other confidential information and to SCO's knowledge, has not stolen or
otherwise misappropriated any of SCO's trade secrets or confidential
information." They also claim that Redhat is seeking "to vindicate
entire Linux industry."
This also reworded in another section. "Since Redhat had no access to
confidential UNIX System V source code or the improper taking of that source
code, Redhat cannot legally be in a position of 'reasonable apprehension' that
it may be sued for misappropriation of trade secrets."
Made a mention of Chris Sontag being misquoted by cnet news.com.
They never claimed that a suit against Redhat was coming, only that "there
will be a day of reconing for Redhat .. when this is done." (they
emphasised "when this is done" and clarified it meant the IBM suit.
They also state (paraphrased) basically that everything Redhat is upset about is
being decided in SCO vs IBM and that Redhat therefore shouldn't waste the
court's time.
My commentary. If Redhat didn't violate any copyright or trade secrets, how can
their customers be liable? Also, they seemed to dance around discussion of
intellectual property. I also think it's a mistake and short sighted to dismiss
SCO's legal team as idiots or stupid. A lot of the speculation I've read here
has already been answered by them in that motion.
Also, my far-from-expert gut opinion is that I think this motion to dismiss has
a chance to be granted. We know SCO has implied FUD at every step, but how is
that proven and are they responsible for the press spreading and adding to it
too? I also think they will lose the IBM case. They've closed some doors in
response to the redhat suit, and hence one might therefore consider the simple
filing of the redhat suite a success.
All I have time for now (during lunch break). More later tonight (US eastern
time) hopefully. I ordered copies, 33 pages, 35 cents a page. I probably won't
get it for a few days due to hurricane. Thanks for offers to help with copying
costs, but it's pretty insignificant."
message #43019 on the yahoo stock board
i hope poncewattle doesnt mind me posting this here
he is headed to court house now as they called him and said the copies were
ready
regards bren
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tleps on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
For those who haven't looked at the "tour page", I noticed right
off that there is a big "sponsored by HP" logo at the top of the
list.
http://www.sco.com/partners/city_to_city/oct2003/
Seems HP still doesn't understand this is not a company that they wish to be
asociated with. Gonna have to call a couple clients back today and strongly
advise them NOT to buy those HP printers... There are other options for them
that won't leave such a bad taste in my mouth when I have to work on them...
Perhaps the community needs to remind HP that this is a situation none of us are
likely to forget anytime soon, and I assume most of us are keeping a close eye
on who is helping who.
Thomas[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tleps on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 02:41 PM EDT |
Here's the e-mail I just sent to HP. If you wish to send one too you can go to
this link:
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/email/fiorina/index.html
Carly Fiorina,
While looking at SCO's on the road page I could not help but be dismayed to
see, right at the top, the "sponsored by HP" notice and your
corporate Logo.
http://www.sco.com/partners/city_to_city/oct2003/
I hope you realize that the SCO Group is not a company anyone I know in the I.T.
industry has "warm, fuzzy feelings" about. Indeed most of us are
truly outraged by this companies recent actions in attacking both Linux, and the
GPL. While I have almost always exclusively recommended HP printer products to
my small to medium business clients, your corporations continuing alliance with
a company who many feel has at best questionable integrity, if not out right
lying over their interest in Linux, begins to make me wonder if I can continue
making any such recommendations.
As a small business owner my integrity means everything, and I demand the same
from all companies who's products and services I recommend or install. I
sincerely hope your corporation reconsiders it's open support for the
questionable practices of the SCO Group. Should they actually have a real I.P.
claim it should be handled through the courts, not in some trumped up road show
where they seem to feel that the First Amendment somehow makes them immune to
the requirement that they be truthful.
Sincerely
Thomas LePage
RCG Consulting Services[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alex on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 02:59 PM EDT |
> Is HP the secret licensee?
I'm beginning to wonder whether we aren't misinterpreting events. Let's
imagine that you're a big tech corporation like like IBM, Sun, MS, or HP.
What's the most important thing you can do as a business?
It's very simple - you can control as much of Linux and open source as
possible. Identify it as much as possible with your corporation and your
corporate offerings. Depending on how subtle your planning is, it may or may not
be necessary to "own" the source code.
I'm wondering if we need to look at the SCO/IBM fight in that light and ask
what bits of bribery, blackmail, and legal reasoning all the major players are
bringing to the table.
Maybe I'm just spouting gas, but it's an interesting thought, isn't it?
Alex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:03 PM EDT |
> Is HP the secret licensee?
HP are not. HP have equivalent rights to SCO's in 32 bit code, to the 64 bit
UNIX code base. Even if there was infringement, HP have no need to license code
from SCO.
HP, Oracle, Sun, MS, RIAA are NOT behind SCO. There is no need for stupid
conspiracy theories.
The people behind SCO are Canopy/Angel/NFT/Yarro, Cohen, Wall, and SCO
executives. There may other be some other VCs, perhaps linked thru
Canopy/Angel/NFT/Yarro, involved.
They ALL profit from an inflated stock price.
Judging by the rate at which they are all (with possible exception of Cohen)
off-loading stock, they do not believe they have any chance of winning in the
long-run, or maintaining the stock price in the long-run.
Some other companies (Sun, MS) may be using the SCO issue for tactical marketing
advantage. But that is not the same as being behind SCO.
Sun may actually turn a profit on their license purchase - thanks to the SCO
options that they got. Sun also got rights to 100 drivers (which incidentally
suddenly appeared in Unixware, and look suspiciously similar to ones previously
found in SuSE Linux).
If I was Sun, I'd be *VERY* worried about using those drivers (potential
copyright infringement issue), using those SCO options (securities issues), or
those ads etc., already used against IBM (Lanham Act, trade libel). I don't
know about the potential securities issue, but I'm willing to bet the other two
issues WILL be followed up after IBM is finished with SCO/Canopy.
MS paid up as they were SCO's other target, except for IBM.
SCO's complaint against IBM, misquotes some press articles about IBM. SCO's
previously DR-DOS complaint against MS (Caldera vs MS), apparently used the same
tactic. In other words, the Caldera vs MS complaint had REALLY serious flaws
(even if MS did do some questionable things against DR-DOS).
MS knew this, but settled - MS settled because SCO wanted to read Windows source
code as part of discovery.
I believe MS settled with SCO for the UNIX issue - because MS is still open to
the same type of "discovery blackmail". Having done this, it's not
surprising that MS will make the best of it, i.e. use SCO for marketing
advantage.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
Groklaw readers like to do research, so here is a topic that could come up with
something valuable.
What is Darl McBride's background and history? What happened with those
companies he started, what did he do at Novell, what do his former employees,
supervisors, and partners say about him, ditto those fired from SCO after he
started there, what do his college and high school classmates think about him,
any personal lawsuits, restraining orders, etc.
He seems to be a con man, so supposedly he has done some illegal or dubious
things in the past. It would be great to dig up some dirt on him. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Research Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:42 PM EDT
- Research Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 06:06 PM EDT
- Research Topic - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 06:08 PM EDT
- Research Topic - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:47 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: BigTex on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
To a Layman this sounds like a brilliant strategy. SCO's position is that RH
cannot sue because they are not being accused of anything. Therefore until the
IBM case is heard/settled the code stays hidden and the FUD continues. By
saying RH is just an innocent victim they have taken the position that only IBM
is guilty and then SCO doesn't have to show their code before they have too in
the IBM case...months away.
Not bad!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tamarian on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 06:38 PM EDT |
This is off-topic, but I thought some may enjoy the irony :)
MicroSoft
and IBM announced a joined effort to release an open standard without royalties
for web services, "reliable messaging and secure, authenticated transactions
across a federated, heterogeneous environment." (SCO recently aquired some web
services patents and IP):
"They also announced that they plan to
take the specifications used to pull off the demonstration, and which the
companies have been developing for three years, to open standards bodies soon,
and that they would not seek royalties for the specs."
During the
meeting for a demo, Bill Gates used a Linux handheld device (the Sharp Zaurus)
connected to a Linux server :)
Link to article
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
Chris Dibona article:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7145[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BigTex on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
2 good links for info and support for the up-coming letter:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3702
http://www.technewsworld.com/perl/story/31599.html
Great quotes and a another press contact (if we don't already have it!
By Robert McMillan
technewsworld.com[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 08:55 PM EDT |
any word on how the netherlands case turned out?
br3n
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:15 PM EDT |
| OK, grokkers, here's my final effort. If you see problems, speak up.
Otherwise, I'll send this off in two hours to the Inquirer for publication
tomorrow:
Dear Mr. McBride,
Recently you wrote an "open letter to the
open source community"
published September 9, 2003 at
LinuxWorld.com. Here is a reply to your open
letter.
We trust you will give this your
attention and due consideration.
This letter comes to you from a group
within the open source/free
software community. Because you addressed your
letter to our
community-at-large,
we thought we should answer you ourselves.
Our community isn't
organized hierarchically like a corporation, so it has no
CEO or overall
leader in that sense, except that Linus Torvalds leads Linux
kernel
development and Richard Stallman leads the GNU Project and the
Free
Software Foundation (FSF). Everyone in this community contributes,
based
upon our interests and abilities. We have written this letter together
on
the website Groklaw, which
is an open source research and
news site that
is currently dedicated to
covering developments in the news about your
company and what we
consider your
disinformation campaign against Linux, our community,
and the GPL.
Quite a
few members of our group are software engineers, including
contributors to the
Linux kernel. Others are proprietors of Linux-based
businesses or are executives
or employees of Linux-related businesses.
A
few of us are lawyers, one is a
paralegal, one is a stockbroker, at
least one is a physicist, a couple are
journalists, one is a retired
policeman, another is a retired truckdriver,
others are in or have
been in the military, and some work or have worked in
government. We
also
have experienced UNIX programmers among us who personally
witnessed the
history of UNIX since its inception, participated in its
development,
and know that software quite well. One of us is a grandmother who
installed GNU/Linux
herself and fell in love with the software. We are a
large,
international and varied group of people, which is only fitting
and
appropriate because GNU/Linux is developed and used worldwide and
the
open
source community to which you directed your open letter is both
global and
diverse. What we have in common is an appreciation for both
the
software and
its ethical roots.
VIOLATIONS OF THE GPL AND COPYRIGHT LAW
Our first
purpose in writing to you is to warn about the consequences of
violating the GNU
General Public
License, the GPL.
You have continued to distribute Linux,
despite alleging that Linux
contains source code
that infringes upon your
copyright(s). Simultaneously, you are
attempting
to compel purchase of "Linux
Intellectual Property"
licenses for binary-only use, under terms which are
incompatible with
distribution of Linux under the the GPL.
According to the
terms set forth in the GPL, any violation of its
license terms automatically
terminates all rights to distribute.
Subsequent distribution then puts you in
the
unhappy position of violating the copyrights of the Linux kernel
authors.
You are not allowed to distribute their code at all under
copyright law
without their permission, permission which they have chosen to grant
only by
means of the GPL. Releasing code under the GPL does not mean
it
has gone into
the public domain. The authors retain their copyrights.
Even when authors
assign their copyrights to someone else, as is often
done by programmers
assigning their copyrights to to the Free Software
Foundation,
the copyright
remains in effect, but with the new owner.
YOUR INVOICES WILL PROVOKE
LEGAL ACTIONS
With regard to invoices that you have said you will mail out
by October
15, it is our opinion that any such action on your part will expose
you
to civil lawsuits under both federal and state consumer protection laws,
as
well as to possible criminal prosecution and penalties should state
and
federal agencies, attorneys general, and district attorneys step in, which
we
fully intend to ask them to do upon receipt of an invoice from you.
For
just one example of state consumer protection laws, we suggest that
you
read New York's General Business Law, Sections 349 and 350. Similar
laws
are on the books in other states. The Linux kernel developers also
have
copyright law to rely upon to protect their rights. Linux-based
businesses may
also elect to avail themselves of other
commercial laws, such as trade libel
law.
Should we receive invoices from you, we will
initiate civil actions
under the anti-fraud and consumer protection
statutes wherever we live, as
appropriate to our respective
circumstances. We will also contact our state
attorneys general
requesting that they seek criminal as well as civil penalties
against
you, in addition to injunctive relief. We also will file complaints
with
the FTC and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate. Some
have
already sent letters to legislators in their respective states and
in
Washington, DC.
We purchased GNU/Linux in good faith, and we chose it
precisely
because
it is released under the GPL. We will not accept your attempt
to charge
us a second time for a product that we have already bought and paid
for,
most of us from vendors other than your company. Further, we accept
no
license other than the GPL for the GNU/Linux software.
WE DO BELIEVE IN
COPYRIGHT LAW
Despite the false impression your letter gives of us -- that
we are
a lawless community that doesn't respect copyright law -- we warn
you
that we do believe in copyright law. It is the legal foundation upon which
the
GPL is built, and we rely upon it to block any unscrupulous attempt
to
proprietize our code by any violators of the GPL. If the Linux
programmers
didn't believe in copyright, they
would have released their software into the
public domain instead of
choosing the GPL.
We demand that you respect the
Linux kernel authors' copyrights, as
well
as the license they chose to use, the
GPL. It would be
hypocritical for you to complain of alleged violations of your
copyrights
and licenses
while at the same time disrespecting the identical
rights of those you
accuse.
We believe we all should be respectful of the law
and the rights the law
seeks to protect.
YOU HAVE SHOWN NO INFRINGING
CODE
You have shown no infringing code. If
you showed code that proved to be
infringing, it would
be immediately removed. Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman,
and the FSF's
attorney, Eben Moglen, each told you so repeatedly, as men of
honor.
You
refuse to let that happen. Why? It appears it is because there is
no
infringing code.
Your most recently filed 10Q shows your UNIX business
declining, even
as Linux continues
to grow in market acceptance. If
you are
refusing to show the code to prevent its removal because you
wish to charge a
kind of perpetual toll by riding on the coattails of
the more successful
GNU/Linux software, that is a shameful and a
hopeless dream. You cannot compel
Linux developers to retain your
code, even if any
infringing code existed. An
alleged infringement can be cured by
removing the
infringing code. We cannot be
forced to continue to use your code, if it
exists in Linux,
something you have
failed to prove. If you can, identify any infringing
code, prove it
is
infringing, and let us remove it, because we surely do not want it.
Even
more shameful would be to try to destroy, co-opt, or proprietize
the
labor of
thousands of good-hearted volunteers who did not volunteer to
work for you, do
not wish to be exploited by you for
your monetary gain, and have already chosen
to release their creative
work
under the GPL.
If your concern is that
evidence will be removed before your claims
against
IBM and its counterclaims
against you can be heard in court, that is a
baseless concern,
because the
Linux source
code is and always will be publicly available for any court to
review at
each stage of its development. Refusing to allow mitigation of
your
damages seems far more likely to cause you legal harm than removing
any
allegedly infringing code.
Secrecy is not an option under copyright
law. You can't make
unsubstantiated allegations of copyright infringement and
then refuse to
offer proof.
We don't need or want your legacy UNIX code, if
any exists in Linux,
which we seriously doubt. It would be a violation of the
GPL to accept
proprietary code into the kernel. If it exists, we want it removed
just
as badly as you do, perhaps more so, because we believe in the GPL.
Just
because people won't walk through your front door to buy your
software,
you have no right to compel them to pay you through the back door
for
what they did not voluntarily choose to buy. You must, therefore, try
to
find a viable business model without our compelled participation.
Any
allegations you have made against IBM are between your two
companies, being a
contractual dispute to which we are not parties. If
you have any valid
contractual claims, they will be settled in a court
of law, but any potential
remedies in that dispute will lie with IBM
and IBM alone, not with Linux users.
You cannot seek to collect twice
for the same transgression, even if there were
a proven transgression.
Further, we note that to date you have filed
no
copyright claims against either IBM or Red Hat.
CODE CAN BE BOTH IDENTICAL
AND LEGAL -- THE BSD
CONNECTION
Since the beginning of this year, you have
claimed that there is
infringing source code taken from your version of UNIX and
illegally
donated to Linux. But when two examples were shown at
SCOForum,
neither supported your allegations. For six months, we have listened
to
analysts say that some source code appeared similar, if not
identical. Yet
what both they and you forgot to investigate and
determine is where that source
code originated, how and by whom it
was
added to the software at issue, to whom
it now belongs, and who is
allowed to use it.
There is BSD code in Linux
which is legally there, and it will, of
course, be identical to or similar to
BSD code in your software.
The BSDi lawsuit revealed that the AT&T codebase
includes a great deal
of BSD code. Caldera itself also later released "Ancient
UNIX" code
under a BSD-like license. Consequently the SysV codebase includes
code
that SCO does not own and or that both SCO and the open
source/free
software community are legally allowed to use.
WE POLICE SOURCE
CODE EFFECTIVELY. DO YOU?
It took a day or so for the code shown at
SCOForum
to begin to be identified by members of the open source
community. If we
do not
police code effectively, as you claim, why were they able to so
quickly
identify the code? You, in contrast, obviously had no idea where
that code came
from, or who it belonged to, or you surely would not
have used it to attempt to
prove "infringement" of "your" code. The
evidence indicates it is your due
diligence system that is broken, not
ours.
If the legal departments of
corporations represent to Linus Torvalds
that they have ownership rights to code
they wish to donate, what
further steps do you feel are needed? Do you have
methods in place to
prevent GPL code from being improperly inserted into your
proprietary
software? Would you be willing to allow us to check for such
violations?
We particularly wish to check your Linux Kernel Personality (LKP)
code.
We suspect that there may be GPL code taken from the Linux kernel and
used
in LKP without authorization, and we challenge you to prove this
never
happened
by showing us your LKP code, throughout its complete
development history to
date.
Any proprietary software company can police its own code in Linux
by
checking the Linux source code. The Linux kernel is open to the
public. If you
see any code that you believe is yours, you have only to
speak up, and it would
be immediately removed, upon confirmation that
it
is infringing. That is what
you should have done. It's a superior
feature in the open source method that all
you need to do is your own
due diligence. This is far greater protection than
your proprietary
system provides, where code can be stolen and hidden and
generally no
one can
check for it, short of a lawsuit.
And speaking of
broken systems, how could it happen that while
working
with the Linux kernel
code for years -- and your company did -- you
didn't notice any infringing code
back then? And how do you explain
that you released the allegedly infringing
code in your own distribution
of Linux for years without noticing it was in
there?
If Linux did contain infringing UNIX code that you failed to notice
for
years, or noticed
but did nothing to prevent, despite the
fact that the
Linux source code was freely available at any time for your
review,
it raises
questions about your internal processes and procedures for
protecting
your
intellectual property rather than demonstrating any purported
"breakdown" in
the
open source methodology.
INDEMNIFICATION IS A RED HERRING
Anyone
considering surreptitiously inserting proprietary software code
into
Linux
knows they would be quickly discovered and identified by name. That is
your
indemnification and your protection. We believe our system for
policing
source code is far more exacting and successful than your
own.
Speaking of indemnification, we note that the software license which
you
propose to sell does not offer indemnification from lawsuits brought
by
other companies.
Proprietary software companies regularly file lawsuits
against each
other for IP violations. Microsoft alone has been found guilty
recently
in several cases, but despite the fact that the GNU Project was begun
in
1984 and Linus Torvalds began the Linux kernel in 1991, there has
never
been
a claim of IP infraction that we know of in all those years, let alone a
finding
of guilt. That record speaks volumes as to which method
does a better
job of policing code, and it reveals that your call for
indemnification is, to
put it bluntly, FUD.
WE RESPECT THE LAW
With regard to your talk of
having experienced a DDoS attack and your
request that we police the community,
your request is like us asking you
to police Microsoft better, to ensure it
never again breaks antitrust
law or never again violates anyone's patents,
trademarks, or
copyrights.
Just because you are both proprietary software
companies, it doesn't
follow that you can control what they do or are
appropriately criticized
for, or appropriately accused of condoning, their
actions. Whether it is
individuals or companies that break the law, it is wrong,
but it
reflects only on the individual perpetrator.
There is a legal process
for such matters. We don't accept as
established fact that there was an attack.
Our doubt is based on the
fact that your employees have been quoted as saying
that reports of an
attack were untrue and that you took your servers down for
maintenance
and had trouble getting them back up again. If the information
your
employees and your ISP provided was false and there was in fact a
network
denial of service attack on your servers, we naturally abhor
such behavior. Your
implications that we would feel otherwise is deeply
offensive.
We would
think, however, that a capable information technology
company
that sells web
services software would have the technical know-how to
handle a DDoS attack,
if
that is really what happened to you. Most such companies do, without
being
brought to their knees for a week. We are glad that you say you
have since
learned technical steps you can take to protect yourself
better in the future.
WHO MAKE UP THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY TODAY?
Kindly revise your concept
of the people and organizations that make
up the open source/free software
community. Your open letter
attempted to portray us as
a countercultural fringe
element. On the
contrary, the truth is that our community
is very much in the
mainstream and includes not only IBM but many of
the largest and most successful
businesses today,
including Red Hat, Merrill Lynch, Verisign, Dell,
Amazon,
Google, Dreamworks, US national scientific
laboratories, including Los Alamos
National
Laboratory, the US Department of Defense, the US
military, and many
other federal, state, and local governments and
governmental agencies,
including, by the way, the town of St. George,
Utah.
You can read the
entire list at Linux International's "Linux Success
Stories" webpage. The Linux
Documentation Project also has such a
webpage, called "Powered by Linux!". The
Linux Counter calculates there
are
currently 18 million
users of GNU/Linux
software.
With so many businesses, educational institutions,
governmental
organizations, and individual users switching to our open
source
community's software, we must be doing something right.
LINUX ALREADY
HAS A BUSINESS MODEL
Your inability to make your Linux business a success,
while unfortunate
for you, parallels your company's failure to make your
UNIX
business a success. Perhaps the problem isn't Linux or the GPL or
the open
source business model.
Economist Amy Wohl is of the opinion
that "The Open Source
Community Has
a Business Model" and one that is successful. Ms. Wohl is an
analyst
who has been covering IT for nearly 30 years and who currently
comments
on the commercialization of new and emerging technology. Here are
her
comments, which we include with her kind permission:
"As an economist,
let me assure you that Open Source has a business
model. It simply isn't one
that a traditional company like SCO, which
expects to be paid for code, can
figure out. There are still lots of
companies that can charge for code, but
only when the code they are
offering is valued by customers because it is unique
or convenient or
offers other recognized value. Other companies (IBM is a good
example)
charge for their Linux-compatible middleware code, but honor the
Open
Source community by supporting it with technical and financial
assistance
and by strongly supporting the open standards that permit
customers to choose to
use Open Source code when they prefer it and
purchased code when they find it,
for whatever reason, more valuable.
Then, as many posters have noted, IBM
extends its business model into
the future by providing services to help
customers plan, design,
implement, and customize whatever combinations of
hardware, open
source,
and proprietary code the customer prefers.
"That is
the new business model and it seems to be a very successful
one."
DUAL
LICENSING IS AN OPTION
We suggest that you ask your attorneys to explain the
Lesser General
Public License (LGPL) to you. If they aren't familiar with the
LGPL,
contact the Free Software Foundation, and they can help you. It may
resolve some of your complaints about the GPL while helping your
business
to
improve and allow you to legally use GPL software, should you insist
on
continuing with the old proprietary software business model.
Companies such as
MySQL
distribute software simultaneously under both open
source and proprietary
licenses, a practice that is acceptable under the
GPL.
By the way, it is not
a violation of the GPL to sell software released
under that license. The "free"
in free software refers to freedom, not that
we can get it gratis. Many of us
have paid for our free software, simply
because it's more convenient or as a way
to thank the wonderful folks
who developed and shared it with the world. If
you're looking for a
successful business model, you can't beat the tried and
true model of
satisfied customers.
We have prepared a research document with
links to evidence
supporting
our position and other resources that you may find
helpful, such as
links to information about the GPL and how it works. The
Inquirer is
making our research document available online here and it will also be provided at the
Groklaw website
in
the
future. We hope that it will help you to understand our position better
and
that it will prove a useful resource to you and to others interested
in this
controversy. We also believe it will demonstrate that we intend to
win.
Thank you for writing to us. We appreciate the opportunity to
answer.
Sincerely,
Members of The Open Source / Free Software Community
at
Groklaw. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Final draft - Authored by: brenda banks on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:31 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:43 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: eloj on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:45 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:46 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:46 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: shevek on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:31 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:37 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: shevek on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:43 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: eric76 on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 10:47 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: GATECH96 on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:02 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:10 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: BigTex on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:39 PM EDT
- Slight changes to first SCOForum Paragraph - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 11:53 PM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: fava on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 12:51 AM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: Dick Gingras on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 01:51 AM EDT
- Final draft - blacklight - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 07:47 AM EDT
- Final draft - Authored by: tamarian on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 08:27 AM EDT
- Final draft = Damn, we're GOOD! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 09:52 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Wednesday, September 17 2003 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
PJ- I have created a sub directory to place links for legal material that can be
used in the SCO situation. Please feel free (and anyone else for that matter) to
make use of it. I will also create a simular folder in the files section to hold
material that isn't linkable.
--Shaun
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 07:35 AM EDT |
Guys, it's time to catch only egregious errors. This is sent already, but if
you catch any bad errors, we can probably fix if we move quickly. Thanks for
all your help:
Dear Mr. McBride,<p>
Recently you wrote an "open letter to the open source community"
published September 9, 2003 by <a
href="http://linuxworld.com/story/34007.htm"
target="_blank">LinuxWorld.com</a>. This reply is from a
group within the open source / free software community. Because you addressed
your letter to our community at large, we thought we should answer you
ourselves. <p>
Our community isn't organized hierarchically like a corporation, so it has no
CEO or overall leader in that sense, except that Linus Torvalds leads Linux
kernel development and Richard Stallman leads the GNU Project and the Free
Software Foundation (FSF). We have written this letter together on the website
<a href="http://www.groklaw.com"
target="_blank">Groklaw</a>, which is a research and news
site currently dedicated to covering developments in the news about your
company.<p>
Quite a number in the group are software engineers, including contributors to
the Linux kernel. Others are proprietors of Linux-based businesses or executives
or employees of Linux-related businesses. A few of us are lawyers, one is a
paralegal, one a stockbroker, at
least one is a physicist, a couple are journalists, one is a retired policeman,
another a retired truckdriver, others are in or have been in the military, and
some work or have worked in government. We also have experienced UNIX
programmers among us who personally witnessed the
history of UNIX since its inception, participated in its development, and know
the software well. One of us is a grandmother who installed GNU/Linux herself
recently on her computer and fell in love with the software. We are a large,
international and varied group of people, which is appropriate because GNU/Linux
is developed and used worldwide and the open source community to which you
directed your open letter is both global and diverse. <p>
VIOLATIONS OF THE GPL AND COPYRIGHT LAW<p>
Our first purpose in writing to you is to warn about the consequences of
violating the GNU General Public License, the GPL.<p>
You have continued to distribute Linux, despite alleging that Linux contains
infringing source code. Simultaneously, you are attempting to compel purchase
of "Linux Intellectual Property" licenses for binary-only use, under
terms which are incompatible with distribution of Linux under the the
GPL.<p>
According to the GPL, any violation of its license terms terminates all
distribution rights. Subsequent distribution then puts you in the unhappy
position of violating the copyrights of the Linux kernel authors. You are not
allowed to distribute their source code at all under copyright law without their
permission, permission which they have chosen to grant only by means of the GPL.
Releasing source code under the GPL does not mean it has gone into the public
domain. The authors retain their copyrights. Even when authors assign their
copyrights to someone else, as is often done by programmers assigning their
copyrights to to the Free Software Foundation, the copyright remains in effect,
with the new owner.<p>
YOUR INVOICES WILL PROVOKE LEGAL ACTIONS<p>
With regard to the invoices that you have said you will mail out by October 15,
it is our opinion that any such action on your part will expose you to civil
lawsuits under both federal and state consumer protection laws, as well as to
possible criminal prosecution and penalties should state and federal agencies,
attorneys general, and district attorneys step in, which
we fully intend to ask them to do upon receipt of an invoice from you.<p>
For just one example of state consumer protection laws, we suggest that you read
New York's General Business Law, Sections 349 and 350. Similar laws are on the
books in other states. The Linux kernel developers also have copyright law to
rely upon to protect their rights. Linux-based businesses may also elect to
avail themselves of other commercial laws, such as trade libel law.<p>
Should we receive invoices from you, we will initiate civil actions under the
anti-fraud and consumer protection statutes wherever we live, according to our
respective circumstances. We also intend to contact our state attorneys general
to request that they seek criminal as well as civil penalties against you, in
addition to injunctive relief. We also will file complaints with
the FTC and other federal and state agencies, as appropriate. Some have already
sent letters to legislators in their respective states and in Washington,
DC.<p>
We purchased GNU/Linux software in good faith, and we chose it precisely because
it is released under the GPL. We will not accept your attempt to charge us a
second time for a product that we have already bought and paid for, most of us
from vendors other than your company. Further, we accept
no license other than the GPL for GNU/Linux software.<p>
WE DO BELIEVE IN COPYRIGHT LAW<p>
Despite the false impression your letter gives of us -- that we are a lawless
community that doesn't respect copyright law -- we warn you that we do believe
in copyright law. It is the legal foundation upon which the GPL is built, and we
rely upon it. If the Linux programmers didn't believe in copyright, they would
have released their software into the public domain instead of
choosing the GPL.<p>
We demand that you respect the Linux kernel authors' copyrights, as well as the
license they chose to use, the GPL. It is hypocritical to complain of alleged
violations of your copyrights and licenses while at the same time disrespecting
the identical rights of those you accuse. We call upon you to respect the law
and the licenses and copyrights of others.<p>
YOU HAVE PROVEN NO INFRINGING SOURCE CODE<p>
You have proven no infringing source code. If you showed source code that proved
to be infringing, it would
be immediately removed. Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and the FSF's
attorney, Eben Moglen, have each told you so repeatedly, as men of honor. You
refuse to let that happen. Why? It appears to us it is because there is no
infringing source code.<p>
Your most recently filed 10Q shows your UNIX business declining, even as Linux
continues to grow in market acceptance. If you are refusing to show the source
code to prevent its removal because you wish to charge a perpetual toll, in
effect riding on the coattails of the more successful GNU/Linux software, that
is a shameful tactic. You cannot compel Linux developers to retain your source
code, even if any infringing source code existed. An alleged infringement can be
cured by removing the infringing source code. You cannot force us to continue to
use your source code, if it exists in Linux, something you have failed to prove.
If you can identify any infringing source code, do so, prove it is infringing,
and let us remove it, because we surely do not want it.<p>
Even more shameful would be to try to destroy, co-opt, or make proprietary, the
labor of thousands of good-hearted volunteers who did not volunteer to work for
you, do not wish to be exploited by you for your monetary gain, and have already
chosen to release their creative work under the GPL.<p>
If your concern is that evidence will be removed before your claims against IBM
and its counterclaims against you can be heard in court, that is a baseless
concern, because the Linux source code is and always will be publicly available
for review by any court. Secrecy is not an option under copyright law. You
cannot make unsubstantiated allegations of copyright infringement and refuse to
offer proof.<p>
We don't need or want your legacy UNIX source code. It would be a violation of
the GPL to accept proprietary source code into the Linux kernel. If there is
proprietary source code in the kernel, we want it removed just as badly as you
do, perhaps more so, because we believe in the GPL. Just
because people won't walk through your front door to buy your software, you
have no right to compel them to pay you through the back door for what they did
not voluntarily choose to buy. You must, therefore, try to find a viable
business model without our compelled participation.<p>
Any allegations you have made against IBM are between your two companies, being
a contractual dispute to which we are not parties. If you have any valid
contractual claims, they will be settled in a court of law, but your remedies in
that dispute lie with IBM and IBM alone, not with Linux users. Even if some
misappropriation were to be established, you cannot collect twice for the same
transgression. Further, we note that to date you have filed no copyright claims
against either IBM or Red Hat.<p>
SOURCE CODE CAN BE BOTH IDENTICAL AND LEGAL -- THE BSD CONNECTION<p>
Since the beginning of this year, you have claimed that there is infringing
source code taken from your version of UNIX and illegally donated to Linux. But
when two examples were shown at SCOForum, neither supported your allegations.
For six months, we have listened to analysts say that some source code appeared
similar, if not identical. Yet what both they and you forgot to investigate and
determine is where that source code originated, how and by whom it was added to
the software at issue, to whom it now belongs, and who is allowed to use
it.<p>
There is BSD source code in Linux which is legally there, and it will, of
course, be identical to or similar to BSD source code in your software. The BSDi
lawsuit revealed that the AT&T source codebase includes a great deal of BSD
source code. Caldera itself also later released "Ancient UNIX"
source code under a BSD-like license. Consequently the SysV source codebase
contains substantial amounts of source code that SCO and others have already
licensed for use that the open source / free software community may legally
use.<p>
WE POLICE SOURCE CODE EFFECTIVELY. DO YOU?<p>
It took a day or so for the source code shown at SCOForum to begin to be
identified by members of the open source community. If we do not police source
code effectively, as you claim, why were they able to so quickly identify the
source code? You, in contrast, had no idea where that source code came from, or
who it belonged to, or you surely would not have used it to attempt to prove
"infringement" of "your" source code. The evidence
indicates it is your due diligence system that is broken, not ours.<p>
If the legal departments of corporations represent to Linus Torvalds that they
have ownership rights to source code they donate, what further steps do you feel
are needed? Do you have methods in place to prevent GPL source code from being
improperly inserted into your proprietary
software? Would you be willing to allow us to check for such violations? We
particularly wish to check your Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) source code. We
suspect that there may be GPL source code taken from the Linux kernel and used
in LKP without authorization, and we challenge you to prove this
never happened by showing us your LKP source code, throughout its complete
development history to date.<p>
Any proprietary software company can police its own source code in Linux by
checking the Linux source code. The Linux kernel is open to the public. If you
see any source code that you believe is yours, you have only to speak up, and it
will be immediately removed, upon confirmation that it is infringing. That is
what you should have done. It's a superior feature in the open source method
that all you need to do is your own due diligence. Any interested party can
verify that no copyright infringements are taking place, simply by looking at
the published source code. This creates strong incentives for honesty and
provides far greater protection for copyright holders than your proprietary
system, where source code can be misappropriated and hidden and no one can check
for it, short of a lawsuit. Perhaps that is why proprietary software companies
are so often locked in legal battles, something you rarely see in the open
source / free software community.<p>
With regard to broken systems, how could it happen that while working with the
Linux kernel source code for years -- and both Caldera and the Santa Cruz
Organization did -- you never noticed any infringing source code? And how do
you explain that you released the allegedly infringing source code in your own
distributions of Linux for years without noticing it was in there?<p>
If Linux did contain infringing UNIX source code that you failed to notice for
years, or noticed but did nothing to prevent, despite the fact that the Linux
source code was freely available at any time for your review, it raises
questions about your internal processes and procedures for protecting your
intellectual property rather than demonstrating any purported
"breakdown" in the
open source methodology.<p>
INDEMNIFICATION IS A RED HERRING<p>
Anyone considering surreptitiously inserting proprietary software source code
into Linux knows they would be quickly discovered and identified by name. That
is your indemnification and your protection. We believe our system for policing
source code is far more exacting and successful than your own.<p>
On the subject of indemnification, we note that the software license which you
propose to sell does not offer indemnification from lawsuits brought by other
companies.<p>
Proprietary software companies regularly file lawsuits against each other for IP
violations. Microsoft alone has been found guilty recently in several cases, but
despite the fact that the GNU Project was begun in 1984 and Linus Torvalds began
the Linux kernel in 1991, there has
never been a claim of copyright infraction that we know of in all those years,
let alone a finding
of guilt. The record shows which method has done a better job of policing source
code, which reveals that your call for indemnification is, to put it bluntly,
FUD.<p>
WE RESPECT THE LAW<p>
With regard to your talk of having experienced a DDoS attack and your request
that we police the community, your request is like us asking you to police
Microsoft, to ensure it never again breaks antitrust law or never again violates
anyone's patents, trademarks, or
copyrights.<p>
Just because you are both proprietary software companies, it doesn't follow
that you can control what they do or should be criticized as if you condoned
their actions, just because you are in the same proprietary camp. Whether it is
individuals or companies that break the law, it is wrong, but it reflects only
on the individual perpetrator. We deserve the same courtesy. <p>
There is a legal process for such matters. Not everyone accepts as established
fact that there was an attack. The doubt is based on the fact that your
employees have been quoted as saying that reports of an attack were untrue and
that you took your servers down for maintenance and then had trouble getting
them back up again. If that information was false and there was in fact a
network denial of service attack on your servers, we naturally abhor such
behavior. Your implication that we would feel otherwise is deeply
offensive.<p>
We would think, however, that a capable information technology company that
sells web services software would have the technical know-how to handle a DDoS
attack, if that is really what happened to you. Most such companies do handle
them without being brought to their knees for a week. We are glad that you say
you have since learned technical steps you can take to protect yourself
in the future. <p>
WHO MAKES UP THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY TODAY?<p>
Kindly revise your concept of the people and organizations that make up the open
source community. Your letter attempted to portray us as a countercultural
fringe element. On the contrary, the truth is that our community is very much in
the mainstream and includes not only IBM but many of the largest and most
successful businesses today, including Red Hat, Merrill Lynch, Verisign, Dell,
Amazon, Google, Dreamworks, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the US Department of
Defense, the US
military, and many other federal, state, and local governments and governmental
agencies, including, by the way, the town of St. George, Utah. <p>
You can read a entire list at Linux International's "Linux Success
Stories" webpage. The Linux Documentation Project also has such a webpage,
called "Powered by Linux!". The Linux Counter calculates there are
currently 18 million users of GNU/Linux software.<p>
With so many businesses, educational institutions, governmental organizations,
and individual users switching to our software, we must be doing something
right.<p>
LINUX ALREADY HAS A BUSINESS MODEL<p>
Your inability to make your Linux business a success, while unfortunate for you,
parallels your company's failure to make your UNIX business a success. Perhaps
the problem isn't Linux, the GPL, or the open source business model.<p>
Economist Amy Wohl is of the <a
href="http://amywohl.weblogger.com/">opinion</a> that
"The Open Source Community Has a Business Model" and one that is
successful. Ms. Wohl is an analyst who has been covering IT for nearly 30 years
and who currently comments on the commercialization of new and emerging
technology. Here are her comments, which we include with her kind
permission:<p>
"As an economist, let me assure you that Open Source has a business model.
It simply isn't one that a traditional company like SCO, which expects to be
paid for source code, can figure out. There are still lots of companies that can
charge for source code, but only when the source code they are offering is
valued by customers because it is unique or convenient or offers other
recognized value. Other companies (IBM is a good example) charge for their
Linux-compatible middleware source code, but honor the Open Source community by
supporting it with technical and financial assistance and by strongly supporting
the open standards that permit customers to choose to use Open Source code when
they prefer it and purchased source code when they find it, for whatever reason,
more valuable.
Then, as many posters have noted, IBM extends its business model into the future
by providing services to help customers plan, design, implement, and customize
whatever combinations of hardware, open source, and proprietary code the
customer prefers.<p>
"That is the new business model and it seems to be a very successful
one."<p>
DUAL LICENSING IS AN OPTION<p>
We suggest that you ask your attorneys to explain the Lesser General Public
License (LGPL) to you. If they aren't familiar with the LGPL, contact the Free
Software Foundation, and they can help you. It may resolve some of your concerns
about the GPL and allow you to legally use GPL software, should you insist on
continuing with the old proprietary software business model. Companies such as
MySQL distribute software simultaneously under both open source and proprietary
licenses, a practice that is acceptable under the GPL.<p>
It is not a violation of the GPL to sell software released under that license.
The "free" in free software refers to freedom, not that you can get
it gratis. Many of us have paid for our free software, simply because it's more
convenient or as a way to thank the wonderful folks who developed and shared it
with the world. If you're looking for a successful business model, you can't
beat the tried and true model of satisfied customers.<p>
We have prepared a research document with links to evidence supporting our
position and other resources that you may find helpful, including information
about the GPL and how it works and the LGPL. The Inquirer is making our research
document available online <a href="INSERT LINK
HERE" target="_blank">here</a> and it will also be
provided at <a href="http://www.groklaw.com"
target="_blank">Groklaw</a> in the future. We hope it will
help you understand our position better and prove a useful resource to you and
others interested in this controversy. We also believe it demonstrates that we
intend to win.<p>
Thank you for writing to us. We appreciate the opportunity to answer. We hope
and trust that you will give our letter consideration. Thank you for your
time.<p>
Sincerely,<p>
Members of The Open Source / Free Software Community at Groklaw.<p>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 07:36 AM EDT |
|
Dear Mr. McBride,
Recently you wrote an "open letter to the open source
community" published September 9, 2003 by LinuxWorld.com.
This reply is from a group within the open source / free software community.
Because you addressed your letter to our community at large, we thought we
should answer you ourselves.
Our community isn't organized hierarchically
like a corporation, so it has no CEO or overall leader in that sense, except
that Linus Torvalds leads Linux kernel development and Richard Stallman leads
the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF). We have written this
letter together on the website Groklaw, which is a research and news site currently
dedicated to covering developments in the news about your company.
Quite a
number in the group are software engineers, including contributors to the Linux
kernel. Others are proprietors of Linux-based businesses or executives or
employees of Linux-related businesses. A few of us are lawyers, one is a
paralegal, one a stockbroker, at
least one is a physicist, a couple are
journalists, one is a retired policeman, another a retired truckdriver, others
are in or have been in the military, and some work or have worked in government.
We also have experienced UNIX programmers among us who personally witnessed
the
history of UNIX since its inception, participated in its development, and
know the software well. One of us is a grandmother who installed GNU/Linux
herself recently on her computer and fell in love with the software. We are a
large, international and varied group of people, which is appropriate because
GNU/Linux is developed and used worldwide and the open source community to which
you directed your open letter is both global and diverse.
VIOLATIONS OF THE
GPL AND COPYRIGHT LAW
Our first purpose in writing to you is to warn about
the consequences of violating the GNU General Public License, the GPL.
You
have continued to distribute Linux, despite alleging that Linux contains
infringing source code. Simultaneously, you are attempting to compel purchase
of "Linux Intellectual Property" licenses for binary-only use, under terms which
are incompatible with distribution of Linux under the the GPL.
According to
the GPL, any violation of its license terms terminates all distribution rights.
Subsequent distribution then puts you in the unhappy position of violating the
copyrights of the Linux kernel authors. You are not allowed to distribute their
source code at all under copyright law without their permission, permission
which they have chosen to grant only by means of the GPL. Releasing source code
under the GPL does not mean it has gone into the public domain. The authors
retain their copyrights. Even when authors assign their copyrights to someone
else, as is often done by programmers assigning their copyrights to to the Free
Software Foundation, the copyright remains in effect, with the new
owner.
YOUR INVOICES WILL PROVOKE LEGAL ACTIONS
With regard to the
invoices that you have said you will mail out by October 15, it is our opinion
that any such action on your part will expose you to civil lawsuits under both
federal and state consumer protection laws, as well as to possible criminal
prosecution and penalties should state and federal agencies, attorneys general,
and district attorneys step in, which
we fully intend to ask them to do upon
receipt of an invoice from you.
For just one example of state consumer
protection laws, we suggest that you read New York's General Business Law,
Sections 349 and 350. Similar laws are on the books in other states. The Linux
kernel developers also have copyright law to rely upon to protect their rights.
Linux-based businesses may also elect to avail themselves of other commercial
laws, such as trade libel law.
Should we receive invoices from you, we will
initiate civil actions under the anti-fraud and consumer protection statutes
wherever we live, according to our respective circumstances. We also intend to
contact our state attorneys general to request that they seek criminal as well
as civil penalties against you, in addition to injunctive relief. We also will
file complaints with
the FTC and other federal and state agencies, as
appropriate. Some have already sent letters to legislators in their respective
states and in Washington, DC.
We purchased GNU/Linux software in good faith,
and we chose it precisely because it is released under the GPL. We will not
accept your attempt to charge us a second time for a product that we have
already bought and paid for, most of us from vendors other than your company.
Further, we accept
no license other than the GPL for GNU/Linux software.
WE
DO BELIEVE IN COPYRIGHT LAW
Despite the false impression your letter gives
of us -- that we are a lawless community that doesn't respect copyright law --
we warn you that we do believe in copyright law. It is the legal foundation upon
which the GPL is built, and we rely upon it. If the Linux programmers didn't
believe in copyright, they would have released their software into the public
domain instead of
choosing the GPL.
We demand that you respect the Linux
kernel authors' copyrights, as well as the license they chose to use, the GPL.
It is hypocritical to complain of alleged violations of your copyrights and
licenses while at the same time disrespecting the identical rights of those you
accuse. We call upon you to respect the law and the licenses and copyrights of
others.
YOU HAVE PROVEN NO INFRINGING SOURCE CODE
You have proven no
infringing source code. If you showed source code that proved to be infringing,
it would
be immediately removed. Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, and the FSF's
attorney, Eben Moglen, have each told you so repeatedly, as men of honor. You
refuse to let that happen. Why? It appears to us it is because there is no
infringing source code.
Your most recently filed 10Q shows your UNIX
business declining, even as Linux continues to grow in market acceptance. If you
are refusing to show the source code to prevent its removal because you wish to
charge a perpetual toll, in effect riding on the coattails of the more
successful GNU/Linux software, that is a shameful tactic. You cannot compel
Linux developers to retain your source code, even if any infringing source code
existed. An alleged infringement can be cured by removing the infringing source
code. You cannot force us to continue to use your source code, if it exists in
Linux, something you have failed to prove. If you can identify any infringing
source code, do so, prove it is infringing, and let us remove it, because we
surely do not want it.
Even more shameful would be to try to destroy,
co-opt, or make proprietary, the labor of thousands of good-hearted volunteers
who did not volunteer to work for you, do not wish to be exploited by you for
your monetary gain, and have already chosen to release their creative work under
the GPL.
If your concern is that evidence will be removed before your claims
against IBM and its counterclaims against you can be heard in court, that is a
baseless concern, because the Linux source code is and always will be publicly
available for review by any court. Secrecy is not an option under copyright law.
You cannot make unsubstantiated allegations of copyright infringement and refuse
to offer proof.
We don't need or want your legacy UNIX source code. It would
be a violation of the GPL to accept proprietary source code into the Linux
kernel. If there is proprietary source code in the kernel, we want it removed
just as badly as you do, perhaps more so, because we believe in the GPL.
Just
because people won't walk through your front door to buy your software, you
have no right to compel them to pay you through the back door for what they did
not voluntarily choose to buy. You must, therefore, try to find a viable
business model without our compelled participation.
Any allegations you have
made against IBM are between your two companies, being a contractual dispute to
which we are not parties. If you have any valid contractual claims, they will be
settled in a court of law, but your remedies in that dispute lie with IBM and
IBM alone, not with Linux users. Even if some misappropriation were to be
established, you cannot collect twice for the same transgression. Further, we
note that to date you have filed no copyright claims against either IBM or Red
Hat.
SOURCE CODE CAN BE BOTH IDENTICAL AND LEGAL -- THE BSD
CONNECTION
Since the beginning of this year, you have claimed that there is
infringing source code taken from your version of UNIX and illegally donated to
Linux. But when two examples were shown at SCOForum, neither supported your
allegations. For six months, we have listened to analysts say that some source
code appeared similar, if not identical. Yet what both they and you forgot to
investigate and determine is where that source code originated, how and by whom
it was added to the software at issue, to whom it now belongs, and who is
allowed to use it.
There is BSD source code in Linux which is legally there,
and it will, of course, be identical to or similar to BSD source code in your
software. The BSDi lawsuit revealed that the AT&T source codebase includes a
great deal of BSD source code. Caldera itself also later released "Ancient UNIX"
source code under a BSD-like license. Consequently the SysV source codebase
contains substantial amounts of source code that SCO and others have already
licensed for use that the open source / free software community may legally
use.
WE POLICE SOURCE CODE EFFECTIVELY. DO YOU?
It took a day or so for
the source code shown at SCOForum to begin to be identified by members of the
open source community. If we do not police source code effectively, as you
claim, why were they able to so quickly identify the source code? You, in
contrast, had no idea where that source code came from, or who it belonged to,
or you surely would not have used it to attempt to prove "infringement" of
"your" source code. The evidence indicates it is your due diligence system that
is broken, not ours.
If the legal departments of corporations represent to
Linus Torvalds that they have ownership rights to source code they donate, what
further steps do you feel are needed? Do you have methods in place to prevent
GPL source code from being improperly inserted into your proprietary
software?
Would you be willing to allow us to check for such violations? We particularly
wish to check your Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) source code. We suspect that
there may be GPL source code taken from the Linux kernel and used in LKP without
authorization, and we challenge you to prove this
never happened by showing us
your LKP source code, throughout its complete development history to
date.
Any proprietary software company can police its own source code in
Linux by checking the Linux source code. The Linux kernel is open to the public.
If you see any source code that you believe is yours, you have only to speak up,
and it will be immediately removed, upon confirmation that it is infringing.
That is what you should have done. It's a superior feature in the open source
method that all you need to do is your own due diligence. Any interested party
can verify that no copyright infringements are taking place, simply by looking
at the published source code. This creates strong incentives for honesty and
provides far greater protection for copyright holders than your proprietary
system, where source code can be misappropriated and hidden and no one can check
for it, short of a lawsuit. Perhaps that is why proprietary software companies
are so often locked in legal battles, something you rarely see in the open
source / free software community.
With regard to broken systems, how could
it happen that while working with the Linux kernel source code for years -- and
both Caldera and the Santa Cruz Organization did -- you never noticed any
infringing source code? And how do you explain that you released the allegedly
infringing source code in your own distributions of Linux for years without
noticing it was in there?
If Linux did contain infringing UNIX source code
that you failed to notice for years, or noticed but did nothing to prevent,
despite the fact that the Linux source code was freely available at any time for
your review, it raises questions about your internal processes and procedures
for protecting your intellectual property rather than demonstrating any
purported "breakdown" in the
open source methodology.
INDEMNIFICATION IS A
RED HERRING
Anyone considering surreptitiously inserting proprietary
software source code into Linux knows they would be quickly discovered and
identified by name. That is your indemnification and your protection. We believe
our system for policing source code is far more exacting and successful than
your own.
On the subject of indemnification, we note that the software
license which you propose to sell does not offer indemnification from lawsuits
brought by other companies.
Proprietary software companies regularly file
lawsuits against each other for IP violations. Microsoft alone has been found
guilty recently in several cases, but despite the fact that the GNU Project was
begun in 1984 and Linus Torvalds began the Linux kernel in 1991, there has
never
been a claim of copyright infraction that we know of in all those years, let
alone a finding
of guilt. The record shows which method has done a better job of
policing source code, which reveals that your call for indemnification is, to
put it bluntly, FUD.
WE RESPECT THE LAW
With regard to your talk of
having experienced a DDoS attack and your request that we police the community,
your request is like us asking you to police Microsoft, to ensure it never again
breaks antitrust law or never again violates anyone's patents, trademarks,
or
copyrights.
Just because you are both proprietary software companies, it
doesn't follow that you can control what they do or should be criticized as if
you condoned their actions, just because you are in the same proprietary camp.
Whether it is individuals or companies that break the law, it is wrong, but it
reflects only on the individual perpetrator. We deserve the same courtesy.
There is a legal process for such matters. Not everyone accepts as
established fact that there was an attack. The doubt is based on the fact that
your employees have been quoted as saying that reports of an attack were untrue
and that you took your servers down for maintenance and then had trouble getting
them back up again. If that information was false and there was in fact a
network denial of service attack on your servers, we naturally abhor such
behavior. Your implication that we would feel otherwise is deeply
offensive.
We would think, however, that a capable information technology
company that sells web services software would have the technical know-how to
handle a DDoS attack, if that is really what happened to you. Most such
companies do handle them without being brought to their knees for a week. We are
glad that you say you have since learned technical steps you can take to protect
yourself
in the future.
WHO MAKES UP THE OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY
TODAY?
Kindly revise your concept of the people and organizations that make
up the open source community. Your letter attempted to portray us as a
countercultural fringe element. On the contrary, the truth is that our community
is very much in the mainstream and includes not only IBM but many of the largest
and most successful businesses today, including Red Hat, Merrill Lynch,
Verisign, Dell, Amazon, Google, Dreamworks, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
US Department of Defense, the US
military, and many other federal, state, and
local governments and governmental agencies, including, by the way, the town of
St. George, Utah.
You can read a entire list at Linux International's
"Linux Success Stories" webpage. The Linux Documentation Project also has such a
webpage, called "Powered by Linux!". The Linux Counter calculates there are
currently 18 million users of GNU/Linux software.
With so many businesses,
educational institutions, governmental organizations, and individual users
switching to our software, we must be doing something right.
LINUX ALREADY
HAS A BUSINESS MODEL
Your inability to make your Linux business a success,
while unfortunate for you, parallels your company's failure to make your UNIX
business a success. Perhaps the problem isn't Linux, the GPL, or the open source
business model.
Economist Amy Wohl is of the opinion that "The Open Source Community
Has a Business Model" and one that is successful. Ms. Wohl is an analyst who has
been covering IT for nearly 30 years and who currently comments on the
commercialization of new and emerging technology. Here are her comments, which
we include with her kind permission:
"As an economist, let me assure you
that Open Source has a business model. It simply isn't one that a traditional
company like SCO, which expects to be paid for source code, can figure out.
There are still lots of companies that can charge for source code, but only when
the source code they are offering is valued by customers because it is unique or
convenient or offers other recognized value. Other companies (IBM is a good
example) charge for their Linux-compatible middleware source code, but honor the
Open Source community by supporting it with technical and financial assistance
and by strongly supporting the open standards that permit customers to choose to
use Open Source code when they prefer it and purchased source code when they
find it, for whatever reason, more valuable.
Then, as many posters have noted,
IBM extends its business model into the future by providing services to help
customers plan, design, implement, and customize whatever combinations of
hardware, open source, and proprietary code the customer prefers.
"That is
the new business model and it seems to be a very successful one."
DUAL
LICENSING IS AN OPTION
We suggest that you ask your attorneys to explain the
Lesser General Public License (LGPL) to you. If they aren't familiar with the
LGPL, contact the Free Software Foundation, and they can help you. It may
resolve some of your concerns about the GPL and allow you to legally use GPL
software, should you insist on continuing with the old proprietary software
business model. Companies such as MySQL distribute software simultaneously under
both open source and proprietary licenses, a practice that is acceptable under
the GPL.
It is not a violation of the GPL to sell software released under
that license. The "free" in free software refers to freedom, not that you can
get it gratis. Many of us have paid for our free software, simply because it's
more convenient or as a way to thank the wonderful folks who developed and
shared it with the world. If you're looking for a successful business model, you
can't beat the tried and true model of satisfied customers.
We have prepared
a research document with links to evidence supporting our position and other
resources that you may find helpful, including information about the GPL and how
it works and the LGPL. The Inquirer is making our research document available
online here and it will also be
provided at Groklaw in the
future. We hope it will help you understand our position better and prove a
useful resource to you and others interested in this controversy. We also
believe it demonstrates that we intend to win.
Thank you for writing to us.
We appreciate the opportunity to answer. We hope and trust that you will give
our letter consideration. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Members of
The Open Source / Free Software Community at Groklaw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Really, really final draft as html - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- Really, really final draft as html - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- Really, really final draft as html - Authored by: BigTex on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 09:05 AM EDT
- Really, really final draft as html - Authored by: Dick Gingras on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 10:02 AM EDT
- Really, really final draft as html - Authored by: Alex on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 10:15 AM EDT
- Really, really final draft as html - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 12:23 PM EDT
- Really, really final draft as html - Authored by: nabet on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 11:31 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
PJ excellent job
send it off
br3n
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Thursday, September 18 2003 @ 08:37 AM EDT |
Some are asking about additional payments from MS.
As I understand it, MS is paying for its "license" by means of a one
off payment of about $7M, followed by a number of additional payments, one per
quarter, for a total of about $15M.
The MS payments will probably keep SCO out of the red till next year.
I read this recently but not even google can suggest where.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
