|
|
| The Australian Complaint |
 |
|
Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 04:33 PM EST
|
Here is the complaint filed by Con Zymaris on behalf of the Open Source Victoria Industry Cluster with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. We will have text soon. They are basing their complaint, among other things, on the fact that purchasers of the Linux kernel already have a licence to use it, the GPL. Note the section marked "Reasoning".
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 04:42 PM EST |
If anyone would like to help transcribe, please choose a page or whatever you
wish to do, and leave a comment that you are doing it, so we don't duplicate
effort.
Email me the results, letting me know what page(s) it is and how you wish to
be credited, if you do.
If you can do simple HTML, that is fine, but plain text is fine too. If you have
only a Windows computer, it's preferable, because Geeklog chokes on the
proprietary Windows stuff.
Thanks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The Australian Complaint - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 04:43 PM EST
- The Australian Complaint - Authored by: Ninguino on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST
- The Australian Complaint - Authored by: inode_buddha on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST
- The Australian Complaint - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 05:05 PM EST
- The Australian Complaint - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 05:14 PM EST
- The Australian Complaint - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST
- The Australian Complaint - Authored by: photocrimes on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 06:26 PM EST
- pdftotext - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:39 PM EST
- Just select the text, copy and paste :) - Authored by: rjamestaylor on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 06:41 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 05:07 PM EST |
As I have said before in other threads. Its nice to see foreign open source
oganizations taking visible action regarding SCO.
American OS organizations should take note, an follow with their own complaints
to the proper US authorities.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 05:09 PM EST |
All but the last couple pages of the document can be converted to ascii text
with ps2ascii.
---
lpletch@adelphia.net[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 05:13 PM EST |
SCO:
"Headquarters in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than
11,000 resellers and 4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable
localized support and services to all partners and customers."
-----------------------------------------------------
Is this true?
11,000 resellers??? I presume M$ has this many (probably more), but I have some
difficulty getting my mind around SCO coordinating this large a business, based
on the management skills I perceive. I define a reseller as a separate business
that takes my products and offers them for sale with value added and/or some
level of support.
Could they be claimimg all resellers of all flavours of UNIX? If they are, this
seems a stretch of credibility.
4,000 developers??? They must define developers differently than I do. Could
they mean 4,000 customers each of which installed Unix and did some tweaking to
make it run? If I had 4,000 developers working on my operating system, it would
be able to sing, dance and run anything on any computer, anywhere. Unix is
pretty good, but... (Does M$ have 4,000 developers?)
We need some investigation into this. It doesn't jive with my vision of the SCO
world.
---------------------
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 05:29 PM EST |
I've typed the last two pages (see my 2 replies to first post), and judging by
comments, the first 6 were already some form of text, so I suppose the whole
document is text now.
(Just posting here, in case people start transscribing without reading the
threads.)
-Cyp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jbossvi on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 05:50 PM EST |
I asked PJ if she would help me find this linux user.
rules:
1) user must have downloaded linux from ftp.sco.com AFTER they announced they
found "IP" in linux.
2) user must have recieved one of the 1500 threatening letters.
If this is you please file a complaint with the local AG's office? Why?
1) IF SCOG can't prove there is infringing ip in linux it is against the law
"deceptive trade".
2) IF SCOG can't prove that the infringing ip in linux is wholly owned by SCOG
it is also "deceptive trade".
3) IF SCOG owns IP in linux and allowed YOU to download it free of charge,
complete with GPL. AND did not warn you that you would have to pay them later,
or that they could change licensing terms, or would have to defend yourself in
court. Again this is deceptive, did the license that came with the the kernel
(GPL) valid or not? you dont know. It is called "bait-n-switch"
"this here product is FREE for you to use as you see fit under the
GPL" and then later "you owe us $$ for the same product THAT WE
PREVIOUSLY TOLD YOU WAS FREE".
the the US AG office: $1299 a cpu X 1,000,00+ linux users is a $1.2 TRILLION
dollar FRAUD that you have allowed to happen. I VOTE... see ya.
in the matrix where they are shooting at agent smith and he dodges every-one,
where trinity puts the gun to his head and says "dodge this".... this
reminds me of that.
--jboss
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sbungay on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 06:14 PM EST |
Page 2 is done. :)
---
Programmer: A red eyed mumbling mamal that converses with inanimate objects.
IANAL IAAP[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LouS on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 06:22 PM EST |
(let ((*IANAL* t))
A couple of lines really caught my
eye:
[The GPL is] aimed at promoting competition for ancillary
goods and services.
The key competitive advantage
of Linux is that] their
customers are acquiring from a free market rather than
one which is
subject to control by a specific vendor (as is the casie for
other
operating systems).
What a nicely anti-FUD way of
explaining FOSS
) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 06:48 PM EST |
It's all well and good that other countries outside of the US are voicing
concerns, but the obvious question is, why no American complaints? I don't know
the number of American contributors to Linux, but I'm sure they're many,
certainly end-users. Why no class-action suits here, or by governmental groups
such as the FTC, or Eliot Spitzer's otherwise excellent work in NY? Perhaps most
disturbingly to me, why nothing from the OSDL or the FSF? With regards to the
former, Eben Moglen has made some interesting comments, but the OSDL as a whole
is taking a defensive rather than offensive posture...it seems (to me anyways)
that the best way to tackle SCO is head on. With the FSF, I don't know if their
petty beef about "GNU/Linux" is actually causing the Stallman camp to
abandon Linux. SCO has made it patently clear they have no interest in abiding
by the terms of the GPL, and indeed wish to declare it illegal, the same as file
copying on Napster. Yet absolutely nothing from Stallman, nothing from the FSF
about this, much less initiating legal action. Can someone explain this? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 07:13 PM EST |
I like the fact that this complaint actually avoids the copyright issues. No
need to wait for the SCOG vs. Novell case.
Hopfully the ACCC will once again show they can work for the Australian public,
and dispel the rumours that they are becoming a political play thing.
RSC.
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 07:47 PM EST |
Has anyone seen that you can now buy licenses on SCO's site?
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/howtobuy.html
Yet another line SCO has crossed which they cannot uncross.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Hygrocybe on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 08:13 PM EST |
This makes me rather proud of my fellow Australians. They have rapidly gone
from stationary to full throttle once sufficient material impacted on the
Australian scene. Now for goodness sakes American organisations: if it is
possible, similar action please and tie this stupid, trouble making firm up in
legal knots !!!!!!!
---
Blackbutt, Australia[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 08:24 PM EST |
Apparently they've finally figured out how to process orders.
http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/linuxlicense.html
SCO Intellectual Property License
for Linux
Many customers are concerned about using Linux since they have become aware of
the allegations that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of the UNIX®
operating system. These customers unknowingly received illegal copies of SCO
property and many are running critical business applications on Linux. Some
customers have asked their Linux distributors to indemnify them against
intellectual property infringement claims in Linux. Due to the limitations of
the GPL and lack of adequate IP controls in Linux, such customers have been
unable to obtain satisfactory assurances, whether through adequate
indemnification programs or otherwise, from distributors that their use of Linux
will not cause them exposure to liability for this use.
SCO has an obligation to stockholders, customers and employees to protect the
value of its assets. SCO is also sympathetic to the end-user’s predicament. SCO
has determined that it can accommodate both conditions by offering a license
that cures the IP infringement in Linux. This new license is called "SCO
Intellectual Property License for Linux" and applies to commercial use of
the Linux 2.4 and later versions. The license insures that Linux end users can
continue to run their business uninterrupted without misusing SCO's Intellectual
Property.
End users who purchase this license are granted the right to use the SCO IP in
Linux in binary format only. The license is available immediately and can be
purchased by credit card through our online store.
Buy Now! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 08:33 PM EST |
A very well reasoned and logical complaint. I would
imagine that the ACCC will now seek comments
from SCO. It will be interesting to see the SCO reply.
However, at best it may force SCO to publicly
abandon its claims to a further licence fee from its
former linux customers. More likely, SCO will
advance some theory of legal justification for their
actions, which the ACCC may or may not contest. In
my experience it is unlikely that they will in fact be
prosecuted or fined if they seek to co-operate with
ACCC and address its concerns.
Hopefully the result will be one small step in the right
direction.
I wonder what the ACCC would make of the Cyber
Knights letters. Last time I checked there had been
no reply to the very reasonable questions posed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- At best? - Authored by: Ed L. on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:03 PM EST
- At best? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 05:48 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:03 PM EST |
So wht kinda proof does the FSF Need to act? SCOG has shown their intent to sell
their IP License (which they have sold a few anyway). They have sent threatening
letters to Linux end users. If that is not a flagrant enough violation of the
GPL what does someone have to do buy SCOG's IP license then take it over to FSF!
So the FSF is letting the big dogs,IBM, Novell and Red Hat do their work for
them. We all know Red Hat's new support plan (might as well be a license) and
we
all know we can trust IBM. Meanwhile, Linux users in america kick back and read
Groklaw shaking their fists above their keyboards thinking "Damn that
SCO". Oh yea, here I'll write it for you TROLL ALERT![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:13 PM EST |
Has Darl spoken lately? I wonder what he has to say about the recent turn of
events.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:21 PM EST |
The hesitance shown by American Linux community to act like their German and
Australian counterparts shows that the American legal system doesn't work - it
scares away good people.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Maybe... - Authored by: snorpus on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 11:43 PM EST
- Maybe... - Authored by: TerryL on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 10:51 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:25 PM EST |
hehe, why does this remind me of the times when the mob ruled and protection
rackets were all the rage.
Anyways, in AU, we are fighting for what we believe in, and in this case, we
believe SCO is lieing, and therefore any request for fees for code that they
have failed to proove as there is tantimount to extortion.
Whats bad for SCO in AU is not the ACCC, but the IT sectors perception of
events, and many who I have spoken to believe the ACCC will stop SCO, and some
even say that if SCO try to push the aussies, some SCO execs in AU may have to
face a judge.
But its all rumors and as far as I am concerned, there is nothing to worry about
if you are not involved with SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gribnick on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:33 PM EST |
This complaint seems to be aimed at the specific fact that existing SCO Linux
customers are being asked to "re-up" and not the general fact that all
Linux end-users are being heisted. Am I reading it wrong or is this the best
first salvo that can be done at this time?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:50 PM EST |
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/inside_ms.asp
As of Feb 11, 2004, Microsoft has 56,104 employees worldwide. 27,480 are in the
"Business Group" which covers coders, program managers, and other
people directly related with development. 24,439 are sales and support. And
4,185 are operations.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: treval on Sunday, February 22 2004 @ 09:58 PM EST |
One would have to conclude from the above that pretty much ALL modern OSs are at
risk.
Certainly *BSD, Windows, QNX, Open-VMS (Posix libs etc) etc could
be argued to infringe on SCO's claims.
The next few weeks should be
very interesting indeed.
Treval
---
Another
Australian who is interested... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Thomas Downing on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 08:27 AM EST |
As far as filing suit in court, I think those bases are covered.
But
as for action similar to the Australian complaint to the ACCC, that is up to
you. If you want action, don't wait, write to your states Attorney General,
Trade Commission or whatever it is called, your congressman, senator,
etc.
The key to this approach is that many people must do it.
Don't count on someone reaching a simpathetic ear with just one letter. Also,
be prepared for little or no response. I have written all of the above in my
state, Connecticut, sending the letters and supporting documents via registered
mail. To date, responses from the AG and trade, nothing, not even a form
letter.
just walk in say "AG, You can get
anything you want, at
RMS' restaurant.". And walk out. You know, if
one person, just one person does
it they may think he's really sick and
they won't take him. And if two people,
two people do it, in harmony,
they may think they're both hackerss and they
won't take either of them.
And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three
people walking in
singin a bar of the GPL and walking out. They may think it's
an
organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day,I said
fifty
people a day walking in singin a bar of the GPL and
walking out. And friends
they may thinks it's a movement.
Thanks, Arlo
Guthrie! ---
Thomas Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 23 2004 @ 02:26 PM EST |
| where is that located.. would like to read them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
