|
|
| USENIX Bd. of Directors Writes Letter to Congress Refuting SCO's Letter |
 |
|
Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 10:46 PM EST
|
The Board of Directors of USENIX, the Advanced Computing Systems Association, has decided that they need to speak out about SCO. They have, therefore, written a letter to Congress, dated February 27, 2004, which you can get as PDF here and which we reproduce here with their kind permission.
*****************************************************************************
USENIX [logo]
The Advanced Computer Systems Association
February 27, 2004
The SCO Group, Inc. (SCO), has recently sued IBM and Novell and launched broad attacks on the legality of and the economic justification for so-called open source licensing, including the free licensing of Linux. As an organization dedicated to advancing the skills and contributions of computer researchers and developers, the USENIX Association is compelled to address and refute the position SCO has taken regarding open source software.
Since 1975, USENIX has brought together the community of engineers, system administrators, scientists, and technicians working on the cutting edge of the computing world. USENIX was here before SCO. USENIX was here before Linux. USENIX and its members serve as an unparalleled demonstration that the best way to support advances in computer programming and to create better computer programs (and to help the American economy) is by sharing innovations, rather than keeping them secret or charging large amounts of money for access to them, as SCO advocates.
SCO argues that open source software, and in particular the General Public License (GPL), by means of which Linux and many other open source programs are licensed without charging fees, are “a threat to the U.S. information technology industry.” SCO’s own programmers themselves use open source computer software tools, so it is difficult to explain SCO’s position except by noting its hypocrisy. Many of the most popular computer development tools are available to programmers worldwide for free through the contributions of the open source development community. If their developers were to charge substantial fees for their use or to withdraw them from distribution entirely, commercial programmers such as SCO and non-commercial programmers alike would be the worse for it.
SCO specifically argues that open source (free) licensing “undermines our basic system of intellectual property rights.” This assertion lacks any legal justification and therefore appears to be merely self-serving. Nothing in our intellectual property laws requires inventors to charge substantial fees for access or use of their inventions. In fact, the laws of copyright and patents, which underlie the intellectual property rights that most often protect computer software programs, give their owners complete discretion in deciding how large their licensing fees should be, or, indeed, whether to impose fees at all.
SCO specifically argues that open source software “has the potential to provide our nation’s enemies or potential enemies with computing capabilities that are restricted by U.S. law.” Intellectual property law is not the right place to impose restrictions on the use of computer programs abroad. That’s what our export control laws do. This confusion between intellectual property licensing and export policy shows how bankrupt SCO’s arguments are. Furthermore, the U.S. export control authorities have acknowledged the impossibility of restricting the geographical distribution of most computer software programs. In any event, neither area of law hinges on whether software programs are licensed for fees or for free, or whether the innovations are kept secret or are shared.
SCO specifically argues, “Each Open Source installation displaces or pre-empts a sale of proprietary, licensable and copyright-protected software.” This would only be true if the open source applications were superior or at least equal to their proprietary counterparts. America has always asserted that the marketplace is the best regulator. Expensive products stimulate the introduction of less expensive and better substitutes. Intellectual property laws do not change that basic principle of capitalism. SCO’s desire to be protected against competition is understandable, particularly if its products are inferior to those of its open source competitors. But it is unreasonable to expect that intellectual property laws will shield SCO from the normal operation of the marketplace.
Intellectual property law has always balanced the need to give inventors protection from competitors with the need to give society the benefit of their innovations and to let the marketplace regulate fees through the mechanisms of supply and demand. Intellectual property laws have never given inventors absolute protection against the competition of lower-cost substitutes. Copyright laws, for example, only protect against copying. If substitute programs are not copies, then they do not infringe, and they are free to compete with the original programs in the marketplace. Inventors who find they can’t compete against lower-cost or free substitutes are compelled to find other things to sell.
SCO’s claims that open source developers are damaging our system of intellectual property rights and are threatening the viability of our technology industry are intellectually dishonest. Indeed, the open source community’s practice of sharing innovations and of making them available for free clearly stimulates development and invigorates the technology sector. From the software that controls the majority of the world’s Web servers to the software that makes tasks easier on your desktops, open source development has enhanced the American economy.
Society is better off when consumers have choices and when products compete with one another on the basis of functionality and price, and inventing is facilitated when inventors share their ideas. USENIX supports the right of programmers to choose whether to charge for their programs or to make them available for free, and we oppose any attempt to change the balance inherent in our intellectual property laws.
Sincerely, The USENIX Board of Directors USENIX ASSOCIATION
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 11:13 PM EST |
When they sent this letter to Congress, who or where did they send it to? Was
each congress-person sent a letter? Also, did SCO do the same, that is, send a
letter to each congress-person?
I'd love to know if SCO ever receievd a response, and what it said. Probably
something like, "Dear Constituent, Thanks blah blah blah, Sincerely,
Joe/Jane Congress-person."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 11:13 PM EST |
If you consider the increased costs of oil and the effect on the economy of the
world and then link that to software costs in a similar fashion...lower costs
yield greater growth and a larger overall economy.
Hence libre wins. SCOG is dead wrong.
math geezer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RLP on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 11:15 PM EST |
| Can't wait for the complete letter. This looks very good. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tim Ransom on Thursday, February 26 2004 @ 11:20 PM EST |
'SCO specifically argues that open source software “has the potential to
provide our nation’s enemies or potential enemies with computing capabilities
that are restricted by U.S. law.” Intellectual property law is not the right
place to impose restrictions on the use of computer programs abroad. That’s what
our export control laws do. This confusion between intellectual property
licensing and export policy shows how bankrupt SCO’s
arguments
are.'
---
Thanks again,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 12:11 AM EST |
U(se)NIX
Doesn't that belong to us?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 12:58 AM EST |
SCO specifically argues, 'Each Open Source installation displaces
or pre-empts a sale of proprietary, licensable and copyright-protected
software.'
I hope that Diet Mountain Dew guy isn't sipping one
when he gets to that quote. If he is, it'll be like a song I heard a lot on
children's TV shows when I was a kid;
"Oops, there goes another 'puter
keyboard!"
(and I can't believe it; I just found "High Hopes" on the
'net!)
Anyway, I find it ludicrous that SCOG asserts that EACH AND
EVERY OSS installation displaces a far more expensive proprietary installation.
Has ANYBODY built a Beowulf-like cluster using SCOG's UnixWare? AIX? Solaris?
IRIX? Windows NT/2K/2K03 Server (shudder)? The only one I know of that
uses a proprietary OS is "System X"
(aka the "Big Mac Cluster") at Virginia Tech, running under Mac OS X 10.3
("Panther").
All other things being equal (which in the case of
UnixWare vs. Linux I've learned they are NOT), a free-as-in-beer (or relatively
inexpensive with support) OS like Linux is going to generate MORE installations
than an expensive proprietary OS, simply because it's cheaper to deploy more
copies of the OS.
DMcB's showing the same kind of ludicrous
sleight-of-hand math that the BSA, the RIAA and such appear to use to calculate
losses due to illegal copying (I'm not advocating the practice, mind you). They
seem to calculate every estimated illegal copy as a lost sale at full retail. I
don't think they factor in that some folks wouldn't have bought a copy in the
first place due to the cost, the fact that some treat illegal copies as "black
market shareware" (one illegal copy, tested and found to be worth buying, can
and often does generate legitimate sales, so instead of being a loss of, say,
$300, it might be a gain of $1500 if the copier buys five copies for
their business) and I'm sure other factors as well. My definition of a "loss due
to piracy" is whether an actual SALE was lost--that a person or company fully
capable of buying the software/CD/etc chose the illegal route instead of buying
it. I suspect we may be talking way less than half of the BSA & RIAA
estimates. Hey--they can make SWAGs about lost sales, so why not me?
:-)
Again, I'm not advocating illegal copying here, just using it as an
example of how "a copy in use that was not bought (esp. from me)" is not equal
to "a lost sale". Same illogic on the BSA & RIAA's part that I've laughed at
for so long is the same illogic SCOG tried to use on Congress. I hope there are
a few smart people there that catch it.
---
"Every time I think
I've heard it all from SCO, they come
up with a new howler." Steven Vaughan-Nichols, eWeek [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:20 AM EST |
The SCO story appears to be getting some coverage by the Australian press. I
wonder if the following events helped start the Australian Complaint.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/02/1075570348783.html
"Leon Brooks, director of CyberKnights, wrote to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, the
SCO Group's regional general manager, Australia and New Zealand, initially on
January 21. In that letter, he said that if SCO did not provide proof by
February 1, he would refer the matter to the appropriate legal
authorities."
"If you know that in doing so I'm using any of your code, copyrighted
material, patented processes or anything of the kinds, please send me an invoice
for those but only if you can accompany the invoice with precise specification
of the rights you can prove are being used.
"By 'precise' I really do mean precise: vague references like 'the RCU
code' will not do because they are not sufficient to make an independent
determination of the veracity of your claims. The SCO Group must surely have at
least some of this evidence available already, as it is being required to
collate it for presentation to a US Court in a week or so."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/10/1076175146841.html
In the letter, Brooks said: "The heart of the matter is that The SCO Group
Australia and New Zealand (hereinafter TSG-ANZ) has widely published claims to
"intellectual property" in Linux, and claims that users of Linux are
required to purchase a licence from TSG-ANZ in the amount of AUD$999.00 for each
single-CPU server running Linux," today's communication said.
"Take notice that such claims are fraudulent, and unless they are retracted
as publicly as they were made, CyberKnights Pty Ltd (hereinafter CK) will
vigorously pursue a conviction of fraud against TSG-ANZ," it said.
Well said.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:45 AM EST |
| http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676955381.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: one_penguin on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:50 AM EST |
I wonder if Samba could terminate SCO's license rights to redistribute Samba
using simliar reasoning as reported in the following article...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/27/1077676955381.html
First paragraph of article:
"One of the best-known network security scanners will no longer be
available with the SCO Group's products, with its developer saying he had
terminated the company's rights to redistribute any version of the program with
its products"
I can imagine SCO fighting for their rights to distribute GPL software.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:53 AM EST |
"Since 1975"...since I graduated from High School in '75 and DMcB is a
few years younger than I am, that means that he was in High School or maybe even
Junior High when USENIX was formed!
Darl, respect your elders now, y'hear?
---
"Every time I think I've heard it all from SCO, they come
up with a new howler." Steven Vaughan-Nichols, eWeek[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: legal insanity on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 03:18 AM EST |
This is nice, but I honestly think if more OSS companies would also send
letters, they might think it's a movement, but the only way something like that
would happen is for people to write to companies like Red Hat, Suse, Mandrake,
and so on, to
encourage such a letter from them, to washington. It might get those congressman
and women , and senators to realize they might need to wake up, instead of
turning a blind eye.
---
Insanity Pleadings is the only Sensible Defense[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greebo on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 04:13 AM EST |
| Hi,
Found this story this morning. Looks like this vendor is not happy with
SCO's interpretation of the GPL, and has therefore withdrawn permission for SCO
to distribute it.
"In response to these blatant violations, and in
accordance with section 4 of the GPL, we terminated SCO's rights to redistribute
any versions of Nmap in any of their products, including (without limitation)
OpenLinux, Skunkware, OpenServer, and UNIXWare. We have also stopped supporting
the OpenServer and UNIXWare platforms," Fyodor wrote.
The full
story is here.
Cheers,
Greebo ---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: CnocNaGortini on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 04:25 AM EST |
It seems to me that if a country is concerned about potentially hostile nations
getting good security-related software (such as strong encryption), the last
thing it makes sense for it to do is to impose export restrictions that motivate
other countries to become the leading suppliers of such software.
Back To Topic: so SCO winning on that point would make things worse for the US
(if this issue actually makes any difference anyway)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 05:46 AM EST |
See this CNet
article for details.
I wonder if this is another prececent-setting
suit dealin g with complex and important issues that might be a candidate for
Groklaw treatment? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: xtifr on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 06:14 AM EST |
Wow, USENIX has always seemed like a fairly conservative organization (not in
the political sense, but in the calm, professional, don't-rock-the-boat sense).
This is a pretty strong condemnation of SCO to come from such a group. I'm
impressed. I wonder if the ACM or IEEE have any comments to offer us about
SCO's madness? :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 06:57 AM EST |
So Fyodor pulled the plug and said Nmap is no longer allowed to be distributed
with SCO products.
Now a question to you grokkers, could he force SCO to change the CDs and pull
all currently circulating "Supplemental Open Source CD" from the
market and remove his program ?
I am quite sure this is what a company with copyrights would shoot for.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Fyodor pulls Nmap from SCO products - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 07:41 AM EST
- Fyodor pulls Nmap from SCO products - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 09:48 AM EST
- No. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:16 PM EST
- No. - Authored by: theo on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST
- No. - Authored by: blacklight on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:34 PM EST
- No? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 02:29 PM EST
- True! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 06:07 PM EST
- Fyodor pulls Nmap from SCO products - Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 08:53 AM EST
- Fyodor pulls Nmap from SCO products - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 11:57 AM EST
- I think Fyodor is somewhat premature - Authored by: Alastair on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST
- Does SCO indemnify their users against IP lawsuits? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:25 PM EST
- Can't Distribute Nor Can they Use It - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 04:38 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 07:10 AM EST |
All i can say is, WOW!
can we get these guys to give a speech at the Harvard Law school next?
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gbl on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 07:15 AM EST |
| Boies has had yet more bad luck in court. Yesterday a judge
blocked Conrad Blacks attempt to sell The Telegraph
newspaper.
Black had hired "super attorney" David Boies to
represent
him.
---
If you love some code, set it free. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Mark Levitt on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 07:18 AM EST |
Someone just posted a link to the joint press release put out by Caldera
(now the SCO Group) and old SCO when Caldera bought the Unix business. The full
text is here
Now,
take a look at the second paragraph under the "Details of the Agreement"
heading:
SCO will receive 28% of Caldera, Inc., which is estimated
to be an aggregate
of approximately 17.54 million shares of Caldera stock
(including approximately
2 million shares reserved for employee options assumed
by Caldera for options
currently held by SCO employees joining Caldera), and
$7 million in cash. In
conjunction with the acquisition, The Canopy Group,
Inc., a major stockholder
of Caldera Systems, Inc., has agreed to loan $18
million to SCO. SCO will
retain its Tarantella Division, and the SCO
OpenServer revenue stream and
intellectual properties.
Revenues for SCO OpenServer were $11.1 million in Q3
of FY2000. Net
proceeds to SCO after expenses will be approximately 55% of
future SCO
OpenServer revenues. The investment banking firms of Chase H&Q and
Broadview respectively, assisted SCO and Caldera Systems, Inc., in evaluting
this acquisition.
Now, doesn't that just blow Darl's claims
out the water?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 07:23 AM EST |
What was this letter for? Is it asking for votes on a bill? Not as far as I can
see.
It looks completely pointless to me,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Frihet on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 07:54 AM EST |
It's important that we ALL write letters to Congress. Believe it or not, all
these people have not been bought and paid for by special interests. Last year
I wrote a letter to each Representative and Senator expressing concern about the
loss of basic liberties and the threat to the U.S economy growing from the DMCA.
That took time and cost some money, but it has to be done if we don't want to
turn our lives over to Congress' growing Corporate Constituency. I'll write
another this year, and SCO will certainly be a topic addressed. Hope you do,
too.
---
Frihet
Repeal the Digital Monopoly Conservation Act.
Write your congress folks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- All of us!!! - Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 09:38 AM EST
- All of us!!! - Authored by: Frihet on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST
- All of us!!! - Authored by: Jude on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 03:05 PM EST
- All of us!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 03:40 PM EST
- DO IT !!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 06:33 PM EST
- All of us!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 09:59 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Stumbles on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 08:16 AM EST |
You know, there are many reasons why the general rule of thumb, ie,
not commenting on law suits that are in progress is, well, a rule of
thumb.
This letter from USENIX is a prime example. I would think by now
McBride and crew would have figured out everytime they open their
mouth, it makes them look worse than idiots. They seem hell bent at
isolating themselves from life, universe and everything.
So far they have been doing an excellent job. Good work Darl.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 08:22 AM EST |
Since OSS is free, more money can be spent on hardware (i.e. you get more
servers for the same buck). This stimulates hardware sales ==> Intel, Dell
and IBM get higher revenues.
So OSS indeed increases the revenues of another sector of the economy. At the
same time we get more computing power at our hands.
Conclusion: The economy as whole doesn't loose anything; it is merely a
re-distribution of spendings from software to hardware. Hopefully we will use
that extra computing power (that we got for nothing) in a creative fashion (e.g.
to increase productivity). It may even turn out to be good for the society as a
whole.
I don't hear OSS advocates bringing those argumens forward. It is time to start
explaining things in a way that economists, congressmen and orinary people
understand?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sjgibbs on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 08:24 AM EST |
I'd rather see SCO forced to cease and disist without the formality of letters
from each author and beleive the terms support that.
Also I'm not convinced SCO are infringing yet on the NMap license, and have
posted about that elsewhere.
IANAL, nor American.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 09:23 AM EST |
Think of it this way. When the software costs less money, companies are free to
spend more money on hardware and labor, which translates into jobs and tax
revenue. It's in the government's BEST INTEREST to support and use FOSS for this
reason alone, regardless of the superior security and quality of software.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 09:52 AM EST |
| This is news because USENIX is probably the closest thing sysadmins will ever
have to a union. After all, USENIX organized and sponsors SAGE, the System
Administrator's Guild. If you live near a large university, you might want to
see if they have a student chapter there. USENIX also sponsors all sorts of
technical publications, conferences, and tests/certifications. So, it's the sort
of membership that people add to their CV/Resume under "Technical Accreditation"
and "Professional Affiliations". To re-iterate what I said in another post
regarding NMap, I don't see why the "export control" stuff keeps coming up. The
ban on strong encryption was lifted some time ago when the NSA started working
on SElinux, and IPSec made its way into the kernel. I don't have a link handy to
back that up at the moment but I remember the event well. So, I don't see why
Dar keeps referring to export controls - its moot. ---
"Truly, if Te is
strong in one, all one needs to do is sit on one's ass, and the corpse of one's
enemy shall be carried past shortly." (seen on USENET) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 10:01 AM EST |
I am not much for jingoism or patriotism, but it seems to me that we need a
meme to assist in the mental postioning of our efforts. The US has, and still
does represent Freedom to peoples of this planet, and is still a desirable
destination for living. Given the heritage of this country (at least as I
understand it) then I think we need to focus on the positive, and let the
yapping dogs run at the wheels of the fire engine racing to put out the fire.
"As American As Open Source".
I think it says it all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crythias on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 10:04 AM EST |
I know I'm not asking the right question, and I'm probably even asking the
difference between apples and oranges.
IF SCO could ask for something (AIX code, emails, etc.) from IBM, how could a
subpoena be used to obtain the information, or is it only in a criminal case
that one would be issued?
Thanks in advance.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 10:18 AM EST |
I can't believe that I could have found a Linux/SCO news story before it
appeared here?
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/02/27/1317219.shtml
And other places. It looks like NMAP's authors are the first to bite on GPL
infringements by SCO.
Hee.. Hee..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 11:10 AM EST |
The story goes that Ben Franklin (yes "the" Ben Franklin) after
inventing the Lightening Rod donated his rights to the public because he felt
that it was important for everyone to be able to protect their homes from
lightening.
Is Daryl accusing Ben Franklin of being Un-American???[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Another example. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 11:43 AM EST
- OT - Ben Franklin - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST
- Another Example - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 02:56 PM EST
- Another Example - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 07:09 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: kcassidy on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 11:46 AM EST |
SCO specifically argues that open source software “has the
potential to provide our nation’s enemies or potential enemies with computing
capabilities that are restricted by U.S. law.” Intellectual property law is not
the right place to impose restrictions on the use of computer programs abroad.
That’s what our export control laws do. This confusion between intellectual
property licensing and export policy shows how bankrupt SCO’s arguments are.
Furthermore, the U.S. export control authorities have acknowledged the
impossibility of restricting the geographical distribution of most computer
software programs. There is one thing that is being left out
of this argument altogether, and that is that not all of the innovations come
from the U.S. Sure, the U.S. has to limit exporting of information created
within the U.S., but how exactly would they have some kind of control over any
form of IP that is generated in another country? They shouldn't. This argument
of SCOs is flawed by indicating that IP violates US export laws and threatens
it, as much of the code from the entire Linux code base is generated around the
world. Can SCO say with absolute certainty that all of their IP that is
controlled by the US export laws was generated in the US, and not by another SCO
location around the world? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 12:21 PM EST |
Well I've not heard of Diamond Match, but I've sure heard of Swedish Match.
They seem to have made a very successful business out of supplying matches
without the protection of a patent.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 12:32 PM EST |
I would ammend the probable letter from the congress nonperson something like
the following...
I appreciate your writing to me on the subject of intellectual property,
copyright, and other matters of concern. However, unless you bring large
campaign contributions, or can ensure that my position (in congress) is
guaranteed in perpetuity... I am going to do whatever I damned well want to.
Sincerely,
G. O. Schmuckyourself
PS. What is intellectual about property anyway?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST |
I think the real stop to SCO is simple;
do not support security fixes in any SCO OS for your software.
IE: any problem in a program running on a SCO OS is not a problem for open
source developers to fix.
---
Litigation is no sustituite for Innovation.
Say No to SCO.
IMHO IANAL IAALINUXGEEK[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pixitha on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 01:52 PM EST |
pun intended?
"shows how bankrupt SCO’s arguments are."
i think so, since they are going there rightly quick, and most ppl know that...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST |
Every US computer user that believes in freedom & the GPL should write their
2 sentors and 1 congressman.
Stating the true fact of the case.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 03:31 PM EST |
Even though SCO is attempting to extract licensing fees in violation of the GPL,
can they protect themselves from being sued by the programmers of hundreds of
projects by claiming that the license is only for parts of code contained in the
kernel?
The reason I ask is that I read on Slashdot that the copyright holder of Nmap
has revoked SCO's rights to redistribute their code, using section 4 of the GPL.
Is it possible that SCO has violated the copyrights of the kernel coders but
have not violated the rights of hundreds of other programmers who own
copyrights of other programs that SCO has bundled into its software offerings?
In other words, did SCO violate the GPL license of Nmap by charging a licensing
fee for the kernel?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 03:45 PM EST |
SCO specifically argues that open source software “has the potential to provide
our nation’s enemies or potential enemies with computing capabilities that are
restricted by U.S. law.”
Here is the heart of that argument...
...like the slave-masters of older times, maybe we better control the teaching
of reading!
And what about math?! My God! If all the foreigners learn math they could
calculate the yield of their weapons and improve them!
And calculators! They might build even better weapons even faster! We must ban
calculators!
And consider this - the first atomic bombs were created using rooms full of
people crunching numbers with only pencil and paper!
We must immediately ban all education and the use of writing materials world
wide! It is the only way to prevent nuclear annhilation!
Thanks for that insight SCO, ...I-M-B-E-C-I-L-E-S...
angy astronomer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2004 @ 04:02 PM EST |
From
InternetNews (linked from wired.com):
Court Adds
Copyright to SCO's IBM Suit
By Alexander Wolfe
A U.S. District
Court has given SCO Group (Quote, Chart) the OK to add copyright infringement
claims to its Linux lawsuit against IBM.
"The Court, therefore, finding
good cause shown hereby grants SCO Group's motion for leave to file amended
pleadings," U.S. Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells wrote in the ruling. (Amended
pleadings refer to the legal document in which SCO has added the copyright
infringement claim.)
Allowing SCO to add the copyright infringement
claims to the suit is expected to bump up potential damages by $2 billion
for each claim, which would bring the potential damages to $5
billion.
...and on it goes. Somebody else write to this
didiot. I'm too pissed off right now. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 28 2004 @ 04:23 AM EST |
Are organizations like the Red Cross, CARE, and so on threats
to the American economy? Each time they provide something for
free that is a "lost sale" (at least the same way open source is a
lost software sale). So helping people because you want to
should be illegal, right. Making something you created available
for everyone to enjoy should be illegal, right? Sorry, Darl, there
are a lot of greedy people in America, but not being greedy does
not make you un-American.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 28 2004 @ 11:18 AM EST |
A pretty good letter overall, although perhaps they could
have mentioned SCO's questionable ownership of the IP
involved...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
