|
|
| CyberKnights Runs With the Ball - 2nd Complaint Filed With Australia's ACCC |
 |
|
Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:08 AM EST
|
CyberKnights has today filed an official complaint with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission against SCO Australia and New Zealand, after having sent three letters to SCO and not getting a satisfactory response. This would be the second complaint that I am aware of having been filed with the ACCC.
The complaint is here as PDF. Sam Varghese has the story.
SCO's public claims and threats, they allege, are costing them business: "Each such lost sale typically represents a loss of between $500 and $5000 worth of work in addition to the unbillable time spent dealing with the enquiry." And they ask for the following relief: that the ACCC restrain SCO from stating, claiming or implying that they own or control the Linux operating system and permanently withdraw the “SCO IP in Linux Licence” from sale; that SCO be compelled to make a public retraction of their claims to ownership of Linux; that SCO be required to publicly state that companies using or distributing the Linux operating system under the GPL are doing so fairly and legally; that SCO "make good the harm which it has already caused CK" in an amount to be determined; that if SCO violates any such orders from the ACCC, that SCO be prevented from advertising or doing business in Australia as an Australian entity.
Significantly, it argues that one firm, EV1, in the US has buckled under SCO's threats and that unless the ACCC acts and clarifies the situation, others may be frightened into buying licenses too.
They reference an Australian law, the Trade Practices Act. The ACCC, I'm told, is an agency well-known for its teeth and its willingness to use them when appropriate, and it has a history of doing so, even against large corporations.
Their complaint mentions several issues, such as lost business and damage to reputation. They say they downloaded the Linux kernel, from SCO's own servers in August of 2003, distributed under the GPL, despite SCO having brought suit against IBM months earlier. SCO surely can't say they didn't know in August that allegedly infringing code was in there, CyberKnights argues. So having received it under the GPL in August from SCO, they don't need any other license, because they already have one, the GPL, which they got from SCO themselves. Speaking of the GPL, Heise reports: "Fujitsu-Siemens has settled with the Open Source project iptables/netfilter out of court. In future, the company will sell its product, the WLAN-Router AP 600 RP-USB, in compliance with the GPL. Fujitsu Simens will publish the code under GPL after a transition period. They will also make a donation of undisclosed size to Free Software Foundation Europe." Thanks to Till for the translation. One other sentence intrigued me, so I asked Sherlock to give it a whirl: "Only recently the project had obtained a similar agreement with the routing manufacturer Allnet." You can read about the Allnet settlement on LWN: "The netfilter/iptables project
( http://www.netfilter.org/) announces out-of-court settlement with Allnet GmbH
( http://www.allnet.de/) on Allnet's infringing use of copyrighted material.
Allnet was offering two products, a wireless access router and a load-balancing
DSL router, both including software developed by the netfilter/iptables
project.
However, Allnet did not fulfill the obligations of the GNU General
Public License covering the netfilter/iptables software. Specifically, Allnet did not make any source code offering or include the GPL license
terms with their products.
"Allnet has now agreed to adhere to all clauses of the license and inform its
customers about their respective rights and obligations of the GPL. It will
further refrain from offering any new netfilter/iptables based products
without adhering to the GPL. . . . "The netfilter/iptables project provides state-of-the-art network
security software for Linux firewalling, packet filter and network
address translation (NAT), distributed as Free Software under the terms
of the GNU General Public License. Being part of the linux operating
system kernel, the software is running on virtually every Linux installation." In case you were wondering if the GPL has any teeth, now you know. Of course, SCO insists on learning the hard way.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:11 AM EST |
A friend of mine who works for some company (he doesn't want me to say which for
obvious reasons) has filed a complaint with the FTC here in the states after
receiving a letter from SCO -- he says at least two others he knows have done
the same.
If we all keep doing this, maybe they will be quiet. Well ok, maybe not... But
still, I have heard that the FTC watches for patterns of complaints.
<hint>
If everyone who gets a letter files, there is sure to be a pattern!
</hint>
---
Striving daily to be RFC-2550 compliant[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tintak on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 05:35 AM EST |
Well done Oz.
---
'it is literally impossible' for SCO to itself provide
direct proof' Mark J. Heise 02/06/04[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: WhiteFang on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:07 AM EST |
5:08 AM EST?
I guess PJ sleeps like my cats - whenever.
Not even my dogs have the nerve to get me up at 3:30 AM to have me watch them
chow down a few bits of cat chow and then let them out. Believe me,
"Rain" does _not_ take no for an answer when he wants something.
Fortunately, PJ doesn't require a comparable service to perform her all hours of
the day or night postings. {Image of PJ knocking down anything and everything
off a headboard or dresser to get someone to turn on her computer.}
Thanks PJ for all you do.
:-D
$INCLUDE BP IANAL
$INCLUDE BP IANEAPL
$INCLUDE BP IDEPALOTV[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:09 AM EST |
The folks that sell these routers and other embeded devices, etc, ... don't all
they need to do is to provide a copy of the whole of LINUX in the box with their
product (and not the exact few parts of LINUX that they are using)?
Since LINUX is free... then why could they not provide a Knoppix-like,
Gnoppix-like, or custom Eagle Linux bootable CD, with a link to a downloadable
version of sources, etc at some web site, in the same retail box with their
product(s) in order to meet the requirements of the GPL or any other like
license? It seems that doing this would be easy to comply with any requirement
for any embeded device use of LINUX, etc!
Would they have to do more that this?
If not, then simple solution![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:37 AM EST |
It's good that Cyberknights is forcing ACCC's hand. The SCO Group Australia has
two alternatives: (1) keep a low profile CK is pummeling it; (2) come out
swinging, and possibly precipitate an ACCC crackdown.
SCO Group Australia is most probably going to stick with keeping a low profile,
and quietly trying to con "licenses" out of Australian businesses
under threats of lawsuits. Not very effective, but an ACCC crackdown would put
an end to any "licensing" attempt.
As an American, I am not pleased that the FTC and SEC are sitting on their
butts. I am not happy that the lawsuits are working their way slowly through our
courts, but we would be far worse off without them. We still are in a far better
position today than 12 months ago when the SCO Group started to make its
allegations. Considering the seriousness of these allegations, we should have
been the ones under pressure rather than the other way around. In 12 months, the
SCO Group has accomplished very little while the Open Source movement has
mobilized and is fully engaged in the war. The SCO Group is demonstrating every
day that it is making more enemies than it can kill - and that some of these
enemies are awfully good at what they do.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 06:49 AM EST |
I may have found another company violating the GPL. Keep in mind that I say I
MAY. I am unable to determine if they have modified the code or if they are
otherwise doing something which might be a violation.
Anyway, here are a couple of emails about it.
---------------------------------------------
Re: Answer for SR-040223-03#WMS-2208R Firmware Source Code
Dear Sir
Sorry,we can't provide our WMS firmware source code for you. Because this source
was the business secret. If any questions left, please feel free to let us know.
Best regards,
ICP Electronics Inc.
T.H Chen
Customer Service
TEL : +886 2 2690 2096
FAX: +886 2 2690 2168
E-Mail : support@iei.com.tw
URL : www.ieiworld.com
3F, No. 22, Chung-Hsing Rd., Shi-Chi City,
Taipei Hsien, 221, Taiwan, R.O.C.
<< Original Message >> --------- IEI ---------- IEI ---------- IEI
---------- IEI
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have read that the WMS-2208R firmware is Linux based. If that is correct, I
would like a copy of the firmware source code as required by the Linux GPL.
Please tell me where I can download it as soon as possible.
Best regards,
------------------------------------------------
So I wrote back politely saying......
------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. Chen,
If your code involves any modifications to the Linux source code, you are
obligated to make those modifications available in accordance with the GNU
General Public License under which the Linux Kernel is distributed.
If you read the GPL and do some research, you will see that this is correct and
that other router and device manufacturers have been required to release their
source code too.
Obviously any separate programs you write from scratch to operate your device
are your business secrets, but any modifications to GPL source code need to be
published. Failure to publish all modifications would violate the GPL under
which the copyright holders permitted you to use the code.
I await your response.
-------------------------------------------------
They haven't responded to my last email.
I am way too busy right now to even find out what to do about this, let alone
actively pursue it. If anyone knows what to do next and has the time, please do
so.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:04 AM EST |
This complaint is really well put together.
I may be English, but this guy deserves the World Cup back, all by himself. I
find myself cheering on OZ.
I think I know enough about OZ and its culture, to realize how this is being
played. This is no court case by CyberKnights. It's a complaint - about
Australian businesses being impacted by the statements and actions of a foreign
company, whose very claims are described, as being a 419 scam, around the
world.
This only need generate a few headlines, and some of the politicians will get
involved. You can't have these illegal
actions by a foreign company impacting Australian business.
Come on OZ, I'm right behind you. Make sure the journalists get it to the
"front page".
Brian S[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Marc Duflot on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:15 AM EST |
| link [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: phrostie on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:18 AM EST |
my dad always said they were good people.
maybe it's time to move south.
---
=====
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: Greebo on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:22 AM EST |
| At last, the winner of sco's first end user lawsuit is ....
AUTOZONE by a
nose!
Speaking as a European, who the hell are AutoZone?
I thought Darl
said this was going to be a household name company, or something like
that?
Greebo ---
-----------------------------------------
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:24 AM EST |
Here is a balanced article in the Tech press
http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0301scoalter.html
This is the first article I have read in the mainstream Tech press that did not
contain significant disinformation and propaganda.
I hope to read more articles like this one. I do not care whether it is pro-OSS
as long as it does not spread lies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Marc Duflot on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:24 AM EST |
| For the quarter ended January 31, 2004, the Company generated impressive :-)
revenue of
$20,000
fr
om SCOsource initiatives.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:25 AM EST |
| Interesting to note that the ACCC uses Linux for web servers both externally
and probably internally
as well. In fact, according to Netcraft, it would appear they switched to Linux
for their external site just 3 months ago! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Greebo on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:34 AM EST |
| OK. I haven't read all of the finiancial stuff
yet, and IANAA, but this stood out :
The loss from operations for
the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 was $5,169,000 compared to a loss of
$738,000 for the comparable quarter in the prior year.
The loss from
operations for the first quarter of fiscal year 2004 includes costs of
$3,440,000 related to the Company's SCOsource licensing initiatives. These
initiatives had not yet commenced in the comparable quarter of the prior
year.
Maybe it's just me, but why would it cost $3.44M to setup
the SCO IP extortion scheme, and doesn't this make it sound like they're
bleeding cash like there's no
tomorrow?
Strange
Greebo ---
--------------------------------------
---
Recent Linux Convert and Scared Cat Owner [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:47 AM EST |
By Jonathan Berr and Susan Decker
March 3 (Bloomberg) -- SCO Group Inc., which says it owns
the computer code behind the increasingly popular Linux software,
sued AutoZone Inc. for using Linux, escalating a yearlong legal
fight that could bring SCO billions of dollars in royalties.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:54 AM EST |
Sec 8-K filing of autozone
<a
href="http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/866787/000089109204001110/e171
24ex99_1.htm"> here</a><br.
Seem to me not a small company.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- with working link - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:56 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Richard Reynolds on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 07:58 AM EST |
| http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040303/law072_1.html
Link
There is
loads of other news over at yahoo about their results etc but I guess this is
the most important! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tcranbrook on Wednesday, March 03 2004 @ 08:07 AM EST |
Here is the mention of Autozone in SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO.
8:
IBM interfered with SCO's software licensing agreement with AutoZone for the SCO
OpenServer software operating system, Contract # 1V736, effective January 24,
2001 (the AutoZone OpenServer License Agreement). Under the AutoZone OpenServer
License Agreement, AutoZone utilized the SCO software as the foundation from
which to conduct all store operations including inventory tracking, point of
sale transactions, back office server activities, event monitoring and to enable
corporate updates to be transmitted to all retail locations.
In mid-2000, upon information and belief, IBM approached AutoZone in an effort
to induce AutoZone to breach its agreement with SCO. In the second quarter of
2001, IBM was actively advising AutoZone's internal software group about
converting to Linux. In the second quarter of 2001, despite the AutoZone
OpenServer License Agreement with SCO, upon information and belief, IBM finally
successfully induced AutoZone to cease using the SCO software and to use Linux
with IBM's version of UNIX. AutoZone ultimately decided not to pay SCO the
annual fee to continue to maintain the SCO products and, upon information and
belief, with the encouragement of IBM, began the efforts required for conversion
to Linux.
Upon information and belief, AutoZone's new Linux based software implemented by
IBM featured SCO's shared libraries which had been stripped out of SCO's UNIX
based OpenServer by IBM and embedded inside AutoZone's Linux implementation in
order to continue to allow the continued operation of AutoZone's legacy
applications. The basis for SCO's belief is the precision and efficiency with
which the migration to Linux occurred, which suggests the use of shared
libraries to run legacy applications on Linux. Among other things, this was a
breach of the AutoZone OpenServer License Agreement for use of SCO software
beyond the scope of the license.
Upon information and belief, AutoZone is currently in breach of the AutoZone
OpenServer License Agreement in that AutoZone is improperly using "shared
libraries" (short cuts and methods which allow programs to interface with
one another and the services of the operating system) contained in the
OpenServer (UNIX based) operating system to enable "legacy
applications" to function on Linux. Legacy applications are those versions
of software applications that have a lengthy and proven track record of high
level function and reliability. The legacy applications utilized by AutoZone
were designed specifically to operate with OpenServer (UNIX based) shared
libraries, but do not function with Linux shared libraries.
IBM was aware of the AutoZone OpenServer License Agreement. IBM knew that the
SCO OpenServer shared libraries were proprietary to SCO. Therefore, IBM knew, or
should have known, that by assisting AutoZone to implement Linux to support
legacy applications by improperly incorporating the SCO OpenServer shared
libraries, it was interfering with SCO's agreement with AutoZone and otherwise
inducing AutoZone to act wrongfully towards SCO. Upon information and belief,
IBM's inducing and assisting AutoZone to breach its license agreement with SCO
was an act that constitutes interference with contract. Upon information and
belief, IBM profited by the interference by earning significant professional
services fees in performing the switch from SCO OpenServer to Linux.
SCO does not presently know the specific dates on which the interference
occurred, how it occurred or which IBM or AutoZone employees were involved
because SCO was not present when IBM sold Linux-related services to AutoZone,
when IBM assisted AutoZone in the design of the new Linux system deploying
legacy applications that depended on SCO OpenServer shared libraries in order to
function, or when IBM performed the professional services to assist AutoZone to
improperly deploy OpenServer shared libraries inside its IBM-provided Linux
implementation. More specific information, such as which IBM and AutoZone
employees were involved, is in the possession of IBM and/or AutoZone and will
require additional discovery from at least IBM and AutoZone.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Thursday, March 04 2004 @ 01:32 AM EST |
... I can print, send, etc.
---
Striving daily to be RFC-2550 compliant[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
