[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

That cannot be right, can it? When you release something under the GPL, you still maintain copyright over it and thus ownership. All you are doing is mandating that if you want to distribute the code you released, you have to do so as openly as you did.

The McBride quote sounds like the trolls that say open source = communism.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

In other words, McBride is either still completely uninformed or he's trying to deliberately mislead the uninitiated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Darl McBride can use gcc, or he can write his own compiler, or he can buy a license for Intel's compiler. He can use Qt or GTK, or he can write his own graphics library, or he can buy a license for someone else's library.

Hell, he can just use Java, get the compiler and graphics library, not have to pay anything and still be able to sell software in the closed model, on a plethora of platforms no less.

My point is just he makes it sound like GPL code is the only thing available to him, and that it therefore somehow diminishes his company's ability to produce closed software. If you don't like the GPL, don't use it. There are all kinds of software companies that don't use GPL code at all, Microsoft avoids it like the plague.

But if you do use it, you owe the people who created it, and must abide by their terms. Every time McBride accusing somebody of doing something bad to him, he's just stating what he's been doing to everyone else.

Grrr. Argh.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://messages.yahoo.com/ ?action=q&board=SCOX

Round and round SCO goes. The reporters are not familiar enough with what's already out there to call SCO on outright lies,
Specifically, they didn't ask about the 'derivative works belong to IBM clause' in the amemements, or the AT&T letter stating AT&T did not intend to execute this exact type over-reaching ownership claim.

On the whole this interview came off much better than a lot of older ones. (Cooper and Farmer, anyone?) SCO's backpedaling (and sometimes digging a deeper, sillier hole) when confronted with facts is telling.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not doing your homework is only embarassing in high school; it is both embarassing and costly in business.

[ Reply to This | # ]

then he is IMHO criminally negligent in his duty to the company and share holders. If the board does keep this CEO then they are negligent in their duties.

So we must assume he is lying.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

click here

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

click here

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

It would be interesting to know what kind of license SGI has, that they haven't apparently been directly threatened yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is Darl also illiterate or just inarticulate?

LMAO.

Sam

[ Reply to This | # ]

But now they claim:

SCO Claims 2002 UNIX Source Release Was "Non-Commercial"

Linux Journal - 1 hour ago

"Blake Stowell, Director of Public Relations for The SCO Group, said this week that SCO's 2002 letter that released old UNIX versions did not offer free, open ..."

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7089&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

(The above is from news.google.com. I have not been able to read the article, Linux journal is apparently down and/or slashdotted.)

The release of old UNIX version under BSD license by SCO last year may have been damaging to SCO's case...

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

When asked for clarification on the "non-commercial" assertion, Stowell replied by e-mail, "That is what I was told by Chris Sontag."

Hehehe. That is so weak it's pathetic!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will no one put these people out of their misery?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I sure hope none of the SCO lawyers every become judges. In fact, as others have pointed out, they probably should be disbarred altogether.

What a farce.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Sanjeev: "or the AT&T letter stating AT&T did not intend to execute this exact type over-reaching ownership claim." Yes, but not just for IBM alone. SCO's amended complaint relies on a Sequent license dated April of 1985. AT&T put out a letter to ALL of the licensees the following August disowning any claims to code that contained none of their own AT&T code. It's mentioned in the Regents amicus brief at [fn13] among Dennis Ritchie's collection of BSDI documents. http://cm.be ll-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930107.amicus.txt

SCO is attempting to retry the exact same issue that sank USL's boat.

Their complaint has headings for Background Facts,The UNIX Operating System, the ATT Unix Agreements, but fails to mention the terms BSD or Berkeley at all. They claim ownership of all the software in System V, but fail to mention that AT&T licensed BSD 4.3 like everyone else (you don't need a license if you own it).

The copyright registration for 4.2 and 4.3 BSD show the University owned them not AT&T. the same amicus.txt: [fn14] In 1988, the University registered its copyrights in 4.2BSD and 4.3BSD. DeFazio Exhibits G and H. These registrations indicate that the University was the author of various additions, enhancements and modifications to 32V. The registration for 4.2BSD indicates that 50% of the commands were derived from 32V and 80% of the files and 50% of the commands had been added to 32V by the University. The registration for 4.3BSD indicates that 45% of the commands were derived from 32V and that 85% of the files and 55% of the commands had been added to 32V by the University.

They also claimed to own copyrights in 50% of the code in System V. That wouldn't cover SCO's exposure to copyright claims from others (think of all the SIGs and USENIX). I might also point out that patents usually are applied through some actual code and IBM has claimed SCO is infringing those on some basis:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm beginning to understand why companies go belly up...

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is in stark contrast to our favorite bumbling company who refuses to stop collectively shooting its mouth off, apparently ignorant that everything spoken & written is being recorded, analyzed, etc. by their opposition...

The fact that every day this looks more like a soap opera only means that I keep reading GROKLAW on a semi-daily basis. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Carry right on looking. Take as long as you want. By the way, check this interview with some of IBM's linux developers, back in June 2002 (when Caldera was still a linux company):

http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/18/1339201&mode=th read&tid=136

"We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU." (Wasn't RCU something the SCO complaint claims SCO owns?)

IBM might possibly have been surprised by SCO's actions, but they certainly weren't unprepared. They checked everything right from the start, and they've got a paper trail a mile wide to prove it.

SCO don't even know what licenses they released their own code under. SCO can examine away, but IBM is already a year ahead of them, and I know whose examiners' competence I'd bet on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

His position, although hypocritical, is not inconsistent. He has every right to download, use and distribute OpenSource code as long as he honors the license. However, Mr McBride and SCO are using the profits from the sale of their product to attack the OpenSource Community.

By starting from a very broad approach and fighting the efforts of IBM and the OpenSource community to narrow the attack, SCO stands a chance of gaining more control over open source code than what they have now. They would have to be handed their heads much like AT&T was in its fight with BSD and the Univ. of California, Berkley to come out the looser in this war.

Unfortunately the courts, because of a Columbia Law Review article by Professor Wendy J. Gordon published in December 1982 (ARTICLE: FAIR USE AND MARKET FAILURE: SONY REVISITED, Glynn S. Lunney, Jr.), have treated copyright more as "private good" than as a "public good" as it was originally intended. This approach brings market forces to bare and forces the alleged infringer to "prove" she was not infringing rather than keeping the onus on the copyright holder to prove infringment took place as the Copyrigh Act of 1976 requires and Justice Steven holds in Sony. (I can email the entire Lunny paper to any who are interested.)

And of course the DMCA really complicates and brudens the issue with really, really bad law giving copyrigh holders rights that Congress may not have had the power to grant. (I also have a good article/paper on this matter.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm feeling all warm and tingly inside. =)

[ Reply to This | # ]

"I'm very much afraid it's all been me, acting to serve my people the best way I know how"

"my people"? does he think he's some sort of king, or prophet? Well, I suppose he does actually.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Glenn

[ Reply to This | # ]

"If, as Mr. McBride claims, the amount of attention SCO has gotten from the computer press is a rational measure of the company's relevance, then -- at for least this week -- the authors of the sobig.f virus are far more relevant than SCO. "

Good Point. -Mike

[ Reply to This | # ]

Starting in the late 1990's under SCO, and later until early 2002 under Caldera, the "ancient Unix" sources were indeed available under a restrictive, non-commercial license. You can find a copy of that on the wayback machine here : web.archive.org/web/20000115142514/www.sco.com/offers/ancient_unix_license.txt, but to save archive.org some bandwidth I'll copy the relevant part here:

"2.1 (a) SCO grants to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable and
nonexclusive right to use, in the AUTHORIZED COUNTRY, each SOURCE
CODE PRODUCT identified in Section 3 of this Agreement, solely
for personal use (as restricted in Section 2.1(b)) and solely on
or in conjunction with DESIGNATED CPUs, and/or Networks of
CPUs, licensed by LICENSEE through this SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE
AGREEMENT for such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.  Such right to use
includes the right to modify such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT and to
prepare DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT based on such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT,
provided that any such modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT
that contains any part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT subject to this
Agreement is treated hereunder the same as such SOURCE CODE
PRODUCT.  SCO claims no ownership interest in any portion of such
a modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a
SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.


"(b) Personal use is limited to noncommercial uses.  Any such use
made in connection with the development of enhancements or
modifications to SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS is permitted only if (i)
neither the results of such use nor any enhancement or
modification so developed is intended primarily for the benefit
of a third party and (ii) any copy of any such result,
enhancement or modification, furnished by LICENSEE to a third
party holder of an equivalent Software License with SCO where
permitted by Section 8.4(b) below, is furnished for no more than
the cost of reproduction and shipping.  Any such copy that
includes any portion of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT shall be subject to
the provisions of such Section 8.4."

However, on January 23, 2002, Bill Broderick, Director, Licensing Services, Caldera, signed a letter stating that these sources were now available for any use, under a BSD-type license, with an advertising clause; That letter can be found at http://www.tuhs.org/Archi ve/Caldera-license.pdf

"Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the
rights use, modify and distribute this named
source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source
code. The source code for which Caldera
International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX Operating
Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11
CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific
exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX
System V and successor operating systems:


32-bit 32V UNIX


16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


...


USE OF THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED FOR UNDER THIS LICENSE BY CALDERA INTERNATIONAL,
INC.
AND CONTRIBUTORS ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT
NOT
LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR
PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. BE LIABLE
FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES;
LOSS OF
USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE
OR
OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED
OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.


...


"

Note the lack of indemnification. :-)

I suppose SCO will make something up about that not being an SCO website or offer some similarly bogus argument. A /. discussion of the release can be found here: http://slashdot.org/a rticle.pl?sid=02/01/24/0146248

In any event, perhaps Stowell only remembers the pre-2002 release, or he's in denial about the later relese, or he's going to claim that Broderick didn't have the authority to do it, or ... ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"...and if you don't stop trying to destroy Linux and everything else we've worked for I guarantee you won't like what our alliance is cooking up next."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Glenn

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

PJ posted a couple of days ago that, IIRC, the records show some paperwork flying back and forth in that case, but that the content wasn't part of the records. In any event, it seems plausible that discovery is happening.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't wait to find out what he's got up his sleeve! When you think of all the ingenuity and inventiveness of open source programmers he can call on, it must be something pretty good....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can't wait to find out what he's got up his sleeve! When you think of all the ingenuity and inventiveness of open source programmers he can call on, it must be something pretty good....

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yes, it's amazing isn't it? Some people get all religious about Unix and it's ownership.

Here's a famous piece from days gone by when it was merely rumored that AT&T would sell to Novell:

Source: From Open Systems Today, 4jan93, p4

"What they're saying about the proposed sale of Unix System Laboratories to Novell.

Dennis Ritchie (co-creator of UNIX):

And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Sewar to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentils; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright. Genesis 25: 31-34

... lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repenetance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

Hebrews 12:16-17

Richard Stallman (Free Software Foundation):

It's not very important who owns USL; what matters is what USL is doing, and how it affects the community. AT&T got a free ride from UCB for a decade. UNIX first became popular in its Berkeley version, because of the features UCB added. The successor of AT&T, accustomed to an unearned advantage, is infuriated that UCB now aims to help everyone alike.

John Gilmore (Cygnus Support):

Novell would give Microsoft the biggest kick in the pants it had ever seen if they would fire all the USL lawyers and make the UNIX system free to everyone in source code. Suddenly, the best high-end OS would have free distribution and a huge network of support people (the Internet). Novell retains control by providing a strong central organization that defines the future of UNIX. They should be able to make $100 million a year just charging for support. Fewer lawyers and licenses and more solid work is what'll beat Microsoft. Factionalism and more legal leeching will play right into the hands...."

It's amazing that we have only managed to move the ball downfield a small distance in that amount of time:)

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

From that old slashdot article....

"Great! (Score:5, Insightful) by twilight30 (84644) on Thursday January 24, @01:56AM (#2891832) (http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 16, @12:55PM)

Never would have thought Caldera would have done something as community-oriented as this, given their history of late.

However, a big thank-you from this Slashdot reader for their act. I appreciate it, and I know I'm not alone..."

You are certainley not alone, hehe

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somebody in Utah is probably thinking, 4% of Linux X $699 = a lot of money

I guess it's also good to know that IBM's Linux budget must be bigger than I previously realized - how can they afford to pay off 96% of Linux users :-)

With all good conspiracy theories, the absence of evidence, serves as proof itself. If the saucer people and reverse vampires were *not* behind the killing of JFK, there surely would be at least one or two clues left behind that might be construed so as to (falsely in this case) implicate them. The fact there are no such publicly-known clues, proves they must have been involved, and were just really good at covering their tracks.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There is a perception that SCO has not been forthcoming about its allegations, SCO CEO Darl McBride admitted. But it was a false perception, he argued. "Are we trying to conceal things? No, it's actually the other way around. We're trying to be extremely open."

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

When I read this (or any of the other ...um, I'm trying to come up with the appropriate term... let's say, "statements" from McBride, I can't help but think of the quote from Greg of Columbia Internet (UserFriendly fans will recognize the name) on www.mslinux.org --- look on the left sidebar in the "what others are saying" section. Greg's quote seems appropriate to much of what's coming from SCO these days.

(Not really informational or relevant, and certainly not productive, but I figured we all could use a good laugh on Friday.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

I almost can understand McBride's position at the interview's end; he sees the currently pervasive enforced Open-Source Communism hurting the bottom-line bigtime! It's logical but not of this world. He must be channelling Philip K. Dick!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Even if IBM broke contracts putting that material into Linux SCO still has no recourse to claim money from Linux users.

You're allowed to charge for trade secrets, copyrights, patents.
Trade secrets - Nope, nothing there that SCO can go after Linux users for
copyrights - Nope, by SCO's admissions nothing there that SCO can go after Linux users for
patents - Nope.

Has a new law been passed that would allow SCO to charge for "generic IP" ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well the whole thing is a story of redemption after all then!

[ Reply to This | # ]

The finger-pointing and scapegoating begins.

Bet it's going to be a pretty uncomfortable weekend around those offices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SGI owns U.S. Patents 6,289,424 and 6,336,177 Method, system and computer program product for managing memory in a non-uniform memory access system.

IBM also holds 20 patents that make claims related to SMP in one form or another. For example, some only relate to microkernel systems others relate to specific hardware.

SCO doesn't even own the offices in the building they occupy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm thinking:

Heise: My dog ate my copy of federal copyright law.

Stowell: I didn't do it. It was Sontag.

Sontag: We owned this stuff before it was even invented.

McBride: I would have succeeded if it weren't for IBM's vast open source conspiracy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perhaps Bruce Perens can quit looking over his shoulder now. If that's what Eric's comments really mean, then some good has come out of all this afterall...;-)

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1999/debian-devel-199904/msg00197.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

And yes, I realize SCO may not be able to get off the ride even if they might want.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Monica Lewinsky is suing everyone who bought a copy of "Living History." She claims that Hillary Clinton stole more than 2300 pages of material Monica had put together for her own book. She won't let anyone she her notes, but claims that you can find word for word examples in Hillary's book.

Since Simon & Schuster won't return her calls, Monica claims that they are forcing her to sue anyone who bought the book to recover earnings that are rightfully hers. She says her lawyers are currently getting sales receipts from Hastings, Waldonbooks, and Barnes and Noble, among others. Miss Lewinsky has set up a 1-800 number for owners of the book who wish to avoid a lawsuit. They can contact her media director and get a "read-only" license for only $99.95 (introductory rate only). Plans are available at a higher price for those who wish to tell their friends or familiy about the book.

She claims the fees are justified given the effort she put into watching TV and writing down notes on the interviews. Yearly renewal fees are still under consideration.

:^}

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interview with Mark Heise, a partner with Boies Schiller & Flexner, which is representing SCO.

The more I read of this story the less I believe that SCO doesn't have some hidden aces and that they are acting alone. More and more it seems as if they are walking point for some other entity, some entity that can reward the risk they are taking.

With the switch in their diatribes to IP/GPL incompatibilities, to the emphasis on Microsoft interoperability in their anounced products roadmap, to the fact that Boies couldn't have not warned a prospective client from such prima facia foolishness, makes me wonder what is really going on here.

I wonder if SCO wasn't offered something along the lines of a junior partnership in the MSPalladium/Media-Conglomorate/World-Domination junta.

Folks, I am not a "crazy conspiracy therory nut" but a retired IT Director and informal student of history. I just have trouble believing that SCO and Boies didn't see their current position as the most likly outcome, and I don't believe they said to themselves lets piss on all of our Linux/UNIX peers, the fanatical OS community and the top 1500 global companies and if it all goes bad we'll just light ourselves on fire and die, they have to have more of a plan.

I sure hope they did, I sure hope they do, but it just doesn't add up to me.

mowa

[ Reply to This | # ]

• a244 - Authored by: Clifton Hyatt on Sunday, March 21 2004 @ 04:28 AM EST

I wish we had a CS department somewhere that could get the University Law School to take up the cause of obtaining a Declaratory Judgment on the status of the 32V source copyright. Thousands of copies were distributed without any attribution, the registration took place 14 years later, and people were deposed in BSDI that testified that Western Electric stripped off copyright notices prior to distribution. The legal question is can anyone post one of these public domain versions? If you cutoff the Unix roots at 32V and BSD 4.3, then claims based on System V will fall under the burden of their own weight.

Oh well..

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

I think their problem boils down to confusing an overabundance of animal cunning with intelligence.

It's an open question whether McBride sold Canopy a bill of goods, or whether Canopy sought out McBride as their hit man. Either way, somebody neglected to do a fair bit of essential research. Combine faulty information with an overestimate of your own smarts, you wind up desperate and floundering in public. You have to wonder how that poor rookie lawyer got this mess dropped in his lap.

In any case it's very unlikely the eminence grise is Microsoft. Canopy, Canopy all the way. There is no "SCO." If there is any mistake in the current backlash coming from the Open Source Community, it's in attributing any sort of independent agency to the SCO management.

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft: "Excellent, my friend. Everything is going according to plan."

[ Reply to This | # ]

AFAICT the 'hidden ace theory' does not fit with much of SCO's behavior.
Why go to such great lengths to alienate most of the IT world if you could win the IBM suit, then use that financial windfall to go after Linux licensing at a leisurely pace, with a win against IBM as precedent?

Why go to such lengths to hide "the aces" when you KNOW that a court will eventually ask about mitigation?

Why all the trial balloons, sending random crap out there (invalid GPL, pregnant cow defense, etc....) if they have some "aces"?

Why all the [ looks-like ] stock pumping? Why go for the world press - releases - per - day record?

The one explanation that does fit their behavior is the 'over - reaching IP grab, using flimsy, tenuous contractual claims and lots of FUD.' (see below for an expansion of this)

|| It's an open question whether McBride sold Canopy a bill of goods, or whether Canopy sought out McBride as their hit man.
||

I think Ransom Love gave McBride the current position, and from what I've been hearing he got that position because of the Noorda/Novell connection.

Regardless, McBride and Canopy have both chortled gleefully about their gaming-the-legal-system skills ( just ask Forbes).

[ Reply to This | # ]

One mo' time...

[ Reply to This | # ]

The more I read this comment, the less I understand it.

Are you saying that after reading a lot you DO believe that they have hidden aces and ARE acting in concert with someone, or that you DON'T believe that they have hidden aces and AREN'T acting in concert with someone? There are simply too many negative clauses in that sentence for my poor little brain to cope with..

M

[ Reply to This | # ]

Besides, D, Why assume stupidity when conspiracy makes a better complaint in the eyes of SEC FBI FTC DOJ ???????

[ Reply to This | # ]

D, because sometimes it's NOT just stupidity and if I stop there the truth and best course of action can be missed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The analyst who covers their firm and put a Strong Sell recommendation, doesn't seem too woried about SCO winning

Canopy who let Sun have options at $1.83, and bought Vultus in a stock deal, doesn't seem too worried about SCO winning

SCO executives don't seem too worried about SCO winning. If I had shares in a company that would massively go up big time when the company won a law suit, I wouldn't sell, tax liability or not - I get a 2nd mortgage on my home, or even sell my home to pay my tax bills and live in my car.

And if SCO thought they were going to win on the code issues, all the non-Aces they played in the media could still come back to haunt them as regards IBM's counterclaims and Red Hat's suits

[ Reply to This | # ]

I'm surprised the University of California hasn't said anything. Maybe they will now that SCO has claimed the BBF - or maybe I'm just dreaming.

[ Reply to This | # ]

But enough about Darl McBride. You were saying about Alzheimer's?

[ Reply to This | # ]

It doesn't matter *as much,* now, that the code was written after 1976. SCO's theory is
that it's all UNIX'ness and since they own UNIXN'ness intellectual property and since
the OpenSource community is creating UNIX'ness (counterfiting/knockoff) of what they want
us to believe is their intellectual property, everyone in their view must pay them

In SCO's view, it doesn't matter *how* hard coders worked. These coders, in their view,
were infringing. Another way to put it is if SCO claimed ownership of Cadillac'ness. As long
as you made cars with cadillac'ness you'd be infringing. They'd claim that it doesn't
matter that your cadillac'ness had better tires, shocks, springs, windows, a nifter steerig
wheel, etc. Its still cadillac'ness. The only way you could get around them would be to
create and own Bently'ness or Rolls Royce'ness, or at least create that impression. After all
looks mean everything.

This is not such a far fetched theory when you consider the evolution of the courts and the
DMCA which treats intellectual property even more like a private good. Further, as I mentioned
elsewhere, when a property is treated like a private good the onus is removed from the owner
to bring proof forth and placed on the user. Also because of "market failure" rational for
Sony, a much higher threshold must be overcome before the public good test can be brought to
bare.

Open Groups desire to develop an open source business model would put the last nail in the
OpenSource communities coffin if they *patented* the approach as a business method. Open source
development by the OpenSource community would have to cease lest patent infringment take place.

I feel strongly that the OpenSource community through one of its agents *must* patent the open
source method itself using a similar approach as the GPL. This would be a very powerful tool
to bring to bare against the SCO's and M$'s of the world and at the same time protect the
the community and alow it to grow and mature.

[ Reply to This | # ]

About patenting the open source methodology... I think we're 18 years late with it as prior art exists as documented here: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.ht ml

About copyrights: I think that American judges are more sensible that Congress. And Congress is more sensible than the *AA's.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Prior art is being eroded by the CTEA and the DMCA both pulling material from the public
domain placing same once again under copyright law.

I tried to make the argument that CSS in effect granted copyright inperpetuity to my
congressman Richard Shelby. He gave me the standard SCO intellectual property line in return.
I think they wrote it for him. He never addressed my concern. Frustrating to say the least.
To say the least I think the RIAA and MPAA have made life easier for the likes of SCO and
others. The courts are doing their best to help out. Check out Lawrence Lessig's blog and Derek Slaters's blog
to get a sense of things to come. It's not pretty. To say it's going to be an uphill fight would
be an understatement.

As far as patenting the open source development method, Bruce Perens has
inadvertantly already exposed the OpenGroup's intentions with his position paper.

MathFox, as I said, I'm not as optimistioc as you. I hope your right but, I dunno.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Open Source movement doesn't need US contributions to continue growing. We sincerely appreciate all the work that was and is done in the US, but open source development is happening all over the world now and the potential in countries as India and China is far larger than in the US. (India and China can afford $200 computers, but not $600 Operating Systems.)

Awareness of copyright and patent issues is rising in both the US and the EU. In Europe the Open Source movement is starting to get backing from politicians. Lobbying has started in Europe. GNU/Linux/Gnome/KDE is coming out of the nerd closet and starts getting mainstream.

First they ignore you
Then they laugh at you
Then they fight you
Then you win

Ghandi. Guess where we are now. :-)

[ Reply to This | # ]