|
|
| Red Hat's Motion and Exhibits - PDF |
 |
|
Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:00 PM EST
|
We now have the PDF of the Red Hat Motion and Exhibits, and you can get it too here and here. The latter is the high resolution version. Note that we are correcting and tweaking the materials we posted yesterday to reflect what is now readable. The most important changes are in the comparison between the Dear Unix Licensee and the Dear Mr. Fuld letters. The list of files appears to be identical. The text of the two letters is not.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: tintak on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:16 PM EST |
Sincere thanks to all concerned in providing this amazing resource.
---
'it is literally impossible' for SCO to itself provide
direct proof' Mark J. Heise 02/06/04[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:36 PM EST |
| I have made available mirrored copies of these PDFs, since they are a bit
large. Please consider using them instead. Save some bandwidth here for the
inevitable slashdotting... Two different locations
Coasts relative to U.S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:51 PM EST |
In the menu to the left there is a RH and a IBM timeline regarding those cases.
Would it somehow be possible to have a timeline of the Novell case as well?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: toolboxnz on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:53 PM EST |
What happened to the judge's descision/ruling from the SCO vs IBM discovery
hearing about 10 days ago? I thought she was going to provide it within a week.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 03:56 PM EST |
What legally can be done to SCO for saying in discovery they don't have access
to the USL settlement while they are concurrently sending out letters saying
what's in the USL settlement? Perjury, contempt, etc....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Re-Read it Again - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:18 PM EST
- USL Settlement - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:50 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:23 PM EST |
While waiting for her honors ruling, my browser astrayed about and found this:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32885.html
It could be considered didiotic as I don't know how to conjugate Enderle in a
similar fashion
Eskild
Denmark[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Don't LOOK!!! - Authored by: Turing_Machine on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 04:51 PM EST
- OT - fresh FUD for thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 05:02 PM EST
- OT - fresh FUD for thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 05:49 PM EST
- Sarbanes-Oxley is... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST
- Not To Mention - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 07:58 PM EST
- Compliance - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 08:29 PM EST
- Compliance - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:15 AM EST
- Compliance - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 03:45 AM EST
- OT - fresh FUD for thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 05:02 PM EST
- What's with that name -- LinuxInsider? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 05:46 PM EST
- Deliberate FUD - Authored by: whoever57 on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST
- Keep It Up Rob! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:15 PM EST
- OT - fresh FUD for thought - Authored by: linonut on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:33 PM EST
- OT - fresh FUD for thought - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 02:27 AM EST
- OT - fresh FUD for thought - Authored by: roman_mir on Thursday, February 19 2004 @ 12:28 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 05:21 PM EST |
| Freedom of speech is a good thing. Even people like Rob Enderle have the right
to express their opinion.
I'm almost as old as he looks, so we should both
remember the introduction of the PC. In those days, a personal computer was
considered a security risk and data created on a computer that was not
centrally managed was dubious. You remember that, don't you, Rob?
It got worse;
those PC's became mobile (laptops), and eventually along came the PDAs. However,
the marketing power of Microsoft (and also Apple and other involved parties)
convinced the CIOs that the green screen was not the only way to go. I don't
think that anyone today would reject a report just because it was typed out on a
PC.
Bob dreams back to his day of auditing software. I guess that things have
changed since. Look at Darls list of 1500 corporate Linux customers, Bob! Are
they OD'ing on heart medicine? Are they stupid to rely their business on Open
Source. Are they the companies of the past, or will they be the companies of the
future?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST |
| I noticed this earlier - it seems Cingular nearly had to pay an extra $1.6
bn for AT&T wireless because the wrong clause got through to the final
signed version of the contract.
Times
Online
The reason? The lawyers had been up for four straight days trying
to seal the deal ahead of potential counterbids.
"A senior City source tried
to explain: “Look these guys haven’t slept for four days.”"
One of the many,
many things I've learned from reading Groklaw these past few months is that
contract law is hard, it is counterintuitive, it is often the opposite of the
precise, unambiguous model that lawyers' professionalism demands they project,
and that's when all parties are working towards the same end. I've always been
more in favour of cock-up rather than conspiracy when things look strange: who
knows how many layers of human error are in the geological record of Unix's
current legal status?
When a company decides to play on those errors for
less than honourable ends, it's not surprising life gets very messy.
R
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: john_chr on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:54 PM EST |
Looks like the heat is continuing to be applied in Australia. Hopefully we will
actually see the ACCC do something soon. When the ACCC move they can move quite
quickly.
Interesting that OSV are using TSG's own prior licensing of Linux against them.
------------------------------
Open Source Victoria updates complaint against The SCO Group with the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission.
Melbourne -- 19 February 2004
The Open Source Victoria (OSV) industry cluster has recently filed an updated
complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) against
The SCO Group in response to that company's ongoing requests for licence fees
for Linux from users.
By a press release dated 20 January 2004 the SCO Group Inc (SCO) (www.sco.com or
www.thescogroup.com) announced the availability of a licence which permits the
use of SCOs intellectual property, in binary form only, as contained in Linux
distributions (the SCOSource Initiative).
SCOs press release, and representations made on SCO's website, raise a number of
issues of concern for Open Source Victoria (OSV), because SCO appears to be
saying some of SCO's existing licences are not effective.
"OSV understands that SCO is currently involved in a dispute over whether
or not it has any copyright entitlements in respect of parts of the code in
Linux," stated OSV member Brendan Scott. "We consider that, as this
complaint does not involve any representation as to SCO's copyright holdings,
then even assuming SCO is awarded all these rights and wins its arguments
against IBM, Novell and others, they do not have any substantive effect on this
complaint."
"SCO has already licensed different versions of the Linux kernel to
consumers and resellers and now appears to be saying those licenses are not
effective according to their plain terms," continued Scott.
OSV notes that the terms of the licence are specifically directed to consumers
who, in addition to using the SCO Versions themselves, are also contemplating
supplying them to others. It is not an uncommon practice for acquirers of a
Linux kernel to then on supply that kernel to others as
part of a service offering. If SCO's initial licence grants were not effective,
both the initial takers, and anyone to whom they have on supplied the kernel
could be affected. Any such uncontested reversal of the previously stipulated
licence has the potential to be very damaging both to consumers and to
businesses who acquired the kernel from SCO for the purpose of on supply.
In the view of OSV, if SCO has previously offered to licence
specific versions (2.2 and 2.4) of the Linux kernel on the terms of the GPL
then:
(a) SCO should be required to be held to those licence terms in respect of
existing licensees. Those licences should be declared to be valid and
effective;
(b) where a consumer acquired a copy of the relevant Linux kernels from SCO
prior to the commencement of SCOs SCOSource intitiative, then that consumer
should be entitled to the grant of a licence by SCO on terms which are of the
same effect as the GPL;
(c) any marketing conducted by SCO in relation to its SCOSource initiative
should explicitly state that existing licensees of OpenLinux and SCOLinux
products are not required to acquire any additional licences and that such
existing licences are valid and enforceable according to their terms;
(d) SCO should correct its existing advertisements and advertise those
corrections;
The full source of the updated OSV complaint can be seen here:
http://www.osv.org.au/index.cgi?tid=120
- - -
About Open Source Victoria
Open Source Victoria is an Industry Cluster consisting of over 100 Victorian
firms and developers which provide services and technology related to Free and
Open Source Software (FOSS.) Open Source Victoria offers marketing, advocacy and
information referral services, and aims to
raise the profile of FOSS in Victoria and work with other similar organisations
across Australia.
http://www.osv.org.au/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: GLJason on Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 11:15 PM EST |
Well, unless they can convince a court to order money from an end user, which I
doubt. After all the crap they've dished out, I don't know of any company that
would pay them for a system, they would go to another Unix vendor that has
bought out their AT&T license so they no longer have to pay AT&T
royalties, use BSD, or [shudder] go to Windows.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
