Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 08:28 PM EDT |
Can't see last 10 or so comments in last topic. I know they were posted as the
number keeps increasing. Guess there might be a limit on total amount of text or
something.
More on the invoices. a must read, I' say
ht
tp://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/os/story/0,2000048630,20278277,00.htm quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 08:57 PM EDT |
"Nobody with all the money MS has to throw at this problem can be so incapable
of designing software or of being able to find a solution." I've got to
disagree. MS has demonstrated by their corporate history that they are focused
on making money and deciding for users what is best for them - not the users.
They are simply reaping what they sow. Earlier comments have mentioned not
ascribing to conspiracy what is really a product of stupidity and I thing that
fits here.
One puzzle piece that I'm waiting to place is how Novell fits into the Canopy
group plan. They really seem to be an odd couple at this point. Don't get me
wrong...I'm a major fan of Novell right now...just can't figure out why the
Canopy influence hasn't rained on Novell's parade. Must be stupidity ;)
That's my two cents and by the way, kudos to PJ for the site and quatermass,
MathFox, Brenda, and all the other regular posters...you make this site
addictive to all of us lurkers. GenWer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 09:16 PM EDT |
Boy oh boy! Linus' comment regarding SCO-Caldera is a priceless moment if there
ever was one :o)
Oh and PJ keep up the great work! This site is head and shoulders above the
rest! Plunger Monkey[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 09:51 PM EDT |
pj, I posted a comment on /.
today in reference to your sharks analogy (with some additional insite of my
own) and it got modded +1 insightful as well as 2x +1 interesting. I think
that's the best analogy (or is it metaphor? whatever) I've ever seen in relation
to this case and how things have preceeded.
Keep up the good work! K.
Gardner[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
thanks, guys. Thanks for the heads up, quatermass. The software just isn't up
to the level of comments
Groklaw is getting, so I'm off to work on the new site. Soon.
GenWer, you may be right after all. I just read this:
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/security/story/0,2000048600,20278272,00.htm
K., I wish I'd thought of what you wrote. It's such a great addition. Being
free to build on other peoples' work has a
lot of benefits, and not just in software, huh? pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 10:01 PM EDT |
The interview
yahoo reprinted appeared on August 20 or so, almost immediately after the code
was released at SCO's Las Vegas fiasco.
I really wish Linus would do one email interview a week. It would go a really
long way in undoing damage Darl, Blake and company seem to be deliberately doing
to the reputation of Linux. r.a.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 10:05 PM EDT |
GenWer, are you aware of some connection between Novell and Canopy that I
haven't seen? While Ray Noorda was CEO of Novell for a time, and founded the
Canopy Group after leaving Novell a shambles, that's about the only concrete
link that I know of.
Novell and Caldera were, at one time, somewhat close in that Caldera Linux
shipped with some NetWare integration tools that didn't exist on other distros,
but that was pretty short-lived and several years ago now. Canopy has no
investment or ownership interest in Novell that I'm aware of.
Joe Wells[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 10:14 PM EDT |
On the subject of regulation. I am in favour of "Full Disclosure" legislation.
In my state (California), if your company's customer database is compromised and
personal information is leaked, then you have to inform your customers.
I think that puts too much liability on the admins. Software vendors have been
known to go for a full year without fixing security bugs. Software vendors
always advertise their products as secure, even though they have had a history
of security problems.
One solution is to assign all software a security rating based on the track
record for the passed year. It would look like the nutrition information that
is displayed on foods. This way, if you bought a boxset you could just look at
the side and see that the software had 9 remote root exploits last year.
This solution costs nothing, but it would make software vendors care more about
security.
(PS. On an unrelated note. I recieved a form letter today from my State
Attorney General's office thanking me for reporting SCO's behavior.) error27[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 10:20 PM EDT |
pj: You are welcome to any of the topic icons on my site to use for yours. You
can either snarf them off or if you use the contact us link at the bottom of a
page, I will zip them and mail them to you. Raving Luni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 10:30 PM EDT |
I really do not think that the SCO group is doing much damage to the reputation
of Linux. If you look at who is panning Linux now, siding with SCO and ignoring
the mountains of evidence rebutting their position as well as the snaking of
their public statements and actions, then check back over the past few years, I
believe that you will find the same analysts, pundits, and journalists that
have always jerked whenever Microsoft pulled the strings. Rob Enderle is just
one example.
I responded to his "The other reality" piece (along with maybe a hundred
others) and read his replies. He has based his entire opinion on the opinions of
some of his financial analyst friends who viewd the code under the NDA. He did
not respond intelligently (mostly not all) to any of the points that were
brought up. He did respond to one poster about the side letter that IBM and AT&T
signed onto modifying and clarifying the original contract, and was promptly
demolished because he only looked at one part of it.
That has been the practice of many of the journalists who have covered
portions of this mess, but there are some who are beginning to ask some hard
questions, and getting no answers, from SCO at least.
Only the timid companies will be swayed by this. I doubt that there are many
home users, current Windows users, who even know that there is a Linux-IBM-SCO
controversy brewing. No harm done there. Most of the companies that were
contemplating rolling out Linux are still doing so. Very few seem to be waiting
to see what is going to happen in the courts. I would imagine that tjey have
already checked with their lawyers.
SCO seems to be harming its own self more with their yammering than anything
else. But don't pay me any mind. I was correct once, but I don't remember which
year it was. maybe I just dreamed I was right once. Maybe Darl thinks he is on
Fantasy Island. That would explain a lot of things.
Glenn Glenn Thigpen[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 04 2003 @ 10:32 PM EDT |
PJ,
I'm stunned. That link you posted on the computer systems that just "walked"
out of the airport in Sydney has blown my mind. In this day and age, how do two
people walk into a computer room, unplug computers, and walk them out the door
without anyone saying anything.
I maintain networks for several companies and I can't walk out the door with
much more then a keyboard without someone looking at me sideways! And I'm well
known and trusted by most of the staff at these companies.
I guess having complete strangers show up to customers sites and remove hardware
must be a normal course of business at EDS? Either that or the security is just
that good at the Sydney airport. Wow, I hope they do a better job of screening
bags!? izzyb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:06 AM EDT |
"As a result of recent attacks, the U.S. government is considering regulating
both vendors and enterprise users of software."
See Design, Development, Deployment 'load marks'. David
Mohring[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:26 AM EDT |
The quote from Enderle mentions regulation of enterprise users as well as
vendors; I don't see any reason to penalize users for a problem that's created
by software vendors, primarily Microsoft.
But, regulating the vendors won't work either because they'll market their way
around any bad publicity and continue with business as usual. In Microsoft's
case, where a substantial portion of their business is a monopoly on Operating
Systems, users don't even get a choice because Windows is still bundled with a
hardware purchase.
Enforcing
Liability may be the best way, as Bruce Schneier argues. (Schneier is a
principal of Counterpane Security and a well-respected member of the computer
security community.) As he summarizes:
"There's no reason to treat software any differently from other products. Today
Firestone can produce a tire with a single systemic flaw and they're liable, but
Microsoft can produce an operating system with multiple systemic flaws
discovered per week and not be liable. This makes no sense, and it's the primary
reason security is so bad today."
One major problem with software liability is how to avoid burdening the authors
of Free or Open Source software with a risk they're not being paid to accept. I
suspect there are exceptions to strict liability with other "free" products, so
perhaps there's a way around the dilemma.
Liability is the Sword of Damocles we all have to live with, whether it occurs
when our dog bites the neighbor, our employee damages a client's property or a
product we sell injures a customer. Why should the software industry be
exempt? Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
Glenn,
I read your post to Enderle's article (and all the others - none supported him);
you did an excellent job of pointing out the flaws in his statements and his
complete lack of research.
It may be too much to hope that he'll take it to heart... Dick Gingras - SCO caro
mortuum erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:44 AM EDT |
Quatermass, excellent link. I've got the impression that Aussie consumer
protection laws are stronger than in the US (correct me if I'm wrong) and there
are attempts to get gagging orders on SCO down under, so that might well be the
reason SCO daren't invoice there. As for the lack of communication between SCO
Australia and SCO USA, it's more keystone koppery!
Dick,
In UK law a vendor cannot disclaim *all* warranty or liability for a good if it
is sold. There is a nice set of guidelines here:
http://www.dti.g
ov.uk/ccp/topics1/guide/tradersguide.htm
For example, if I *buy* a boxed set of SuSE Linux then irrespective of the
disclaimer on the box I am still entitled to a refund if the goods are not "fit
for their purpose." At present SuSE might say that only applies to physical
defects, but I would reckon that if it failed to install on a PC on their own
stated compatibility list that would also qualify.
However, if something is given away free then there is no exchange of
consideration and no contract of sale, so the situation is different. So if I
download the free FTP version of SuSE Linux and my house explodes, my tough luck
(as far as consumer law goes.)
I see no reason why software couldn't be covered along the same lines as
physical goods. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:06 AM EDT |
Here's the article that
David Mohring posted his referenced response to. It's a good exposition of some
of the pros and cons of the liability issue. Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum
erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:26 AM EDT |
On this comment from Rob Enderle:
"Don't upgrade memory on existing systems; even the slightest mismatch between
memory chips can lead to instability."
This is that dumbest thing I have ever read, and I was in the Navy. Any
bubblegum computer tech knows the best way to increase a system's performance is
to add RAM. The second part of the statement is only partially correct. I do
admit it is always best to use matched RAM in any system but if the Main Board
and the RAM Sticks used can adjust to a mis-match it certainly does not make the
software system unstable, rather hardware doesn't function at its best level. Of
course an IT person worth a grain of salt knows this already.
I will agree however that IT types need to keep in mind that they can't blame MS
for all their security woes. I have been on the internet 5 years and I have
never been hit with a Virus, Trojan, or a Worm. Spyware has nailed me a couple
of times though. Why? One simple way, A Good Firewall. If you have no purpose
for a port to be on the Internet Stealth it. If it has to be on the net lock it
and make every connection coming from the Net authenticate. If you need to have
an wide open port run it on a server in a DMZ so that it's segregated from the
rest of the network. All points Mr. Enderle never mentioned. MS needs to be more
thorough on the security audits as well. IT Managers need to step up checking
the critical updates and get them installed once they work out the issues on
(gasp) a test platform. Okay My server is Linux and My Windows clients are
protected because the Linux server has a full stealth Firewall configured. IT
Managers use a test system keep it updated. Fix the issues from the updates and
then deploy them once you know what to expect and do. (Some companies still Have
SP2 on W2K) Come on lets place blame where it belongs MS distributes a POS OS
product full of bugs and holes. Script Kiddies are out there looking to take
advantage of them serious hackers even more so. MS gets out an update to fix a
discovered security hole and issues a patch to fix it. A month later A script
Kiddie in AZ has halted your network because they have been taken over and are
running a DDoS on some site. Sorry a month is long enough to test and resolve
any issue.
--Shaun Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
Dr Stupid,
(You really ought to change your handle - you're far from it!).
Here on the other side of the pond, vendors (at least of software) can disclaim
everything, although some state laws override that. Nevertheless, getting a
refund from Microsoft (or Dell, etc.) for your copy of IIS or Windows is scant
comfort after you've lost irreplaceable data or had to spend a week on
reconstruction of a system because a security flaw let some cretin in.
If you're saying that software should be treated under the law in exactly the
same way as physical goods, including liability for damages, then I agree.
There is a complete lack of incentive for software vendors to exercise care in
the release of their products. I'm sure that in both our countries, a civil
engineer who makes a single error of the magnitude of say, the Blaster worm,
might have a new career asking "Would you like fries with that?" and might even
be spending some quiet time in a prison cell. Software vendors can shrug and say
"Sorry about that - we'll fix it in the next release.".
Something needs to be done to correct this situation, whether by bringing the
software world into line with every other industry with respect to product
liability, or with some sort of regulatory regimen. Dick Gingras - SCO caro
mortuum erit![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:55 AM EDT |
Dr Stupid, thanks for the link to the tradersguide! I especially like the
"reasonableness" test on contract clauses:
A trader dealing with a consumer or dealing on his own written standard
terms of business cannot exclude or restrict his liability for breach of
contract or allow himself to provide an inadequate service unless he can show
that the clause satisfies the 'test of reasonableness' (see paragraph 20). Nor
can a trader require a consumer to indemnify him against any loss he may incur
through negligence or breach of contract unless he can show that the clause
satisfies the same test.
I seriously wonder what the clause would mean for the MS-EULA's in europe; I
know similar wording is in Dutch contract law. IIRC there has been an EU
directive that forces all member states to implement this consumer protection
clause in their law. Will it mean that the GPL exclusion of warranty is void,
not nescessarily:
This is called the 'test of reasonableness'. In deciding whether a clause
meets this test the courts will consider the circumstances that were (or ought
reasonably to have been) known to the parties when the contract was made and to
pay particular attention to such matters as the relative bargaining strength of
the parties, whether the customer received any special inducement to accept
the exclusion clause (such as a special discount), whether the goods or
suitable alternatives could be obtained elsewhere without the exclusion clause,
whether the customer knew or ought reasonable to have known of the clause, and
whether to goods were made to the customer's specification.
In providing software for free, GPL developers can defend that exclusion of
warranty is fair. This doesn't automaticly extend to distributors selling GPL
software. I expect that large chunks of the MS EULA wold be found unenforcable
in european courts, but I haven't heard of any of such cases yet! MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:04 AM EDT |
Just a point on the money side of things; I work in software development, and I
can attest to the fact that good code does not come just because you throw money
at the issue. Bad developers with good interpersonal skills often get paid a lot
more than good developers with bad interpersonal skills. As a result, it takes
management effort to make good software, since if management concentrate on
bells and whistles rather than security, you'll get bells and whistles, and not
security.
Further, security is not fun, and it's hard to show progress; managers tend
to like "click here and it does nice things", and tend to be unable to see "I
audited 5000 lines of code and corrected 2 remote root exploits" as actually
doing things. Simon Farnsworth[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:30 AM EDT |
Dick, I know that in the Netherlands it is easier to get damages compensated as
the shop owner is responsible for the quality of his goods. They know that a
good name helps to attract customers. ;)
On the subject of MS software quality, the best thing to say about it is that
it is improving. I have the impression that they are seriously working on it and
that they may reach a "sufficient" level in a few years. If MS had more
incentives, improvements would go faster.
About secure progamming: Good and secure programming isn't that difficult,
but it requires that a programmer knows his tools. When psychology dropouts with
three months of "computer training" are offered as "Oracle consultants" by
consulting agencies I am seriously worried about the quality of their software!
Programming is a craft that requires time to master.
Making good software also requires serious testing and reviewing procedures.
(Security problems are more commonly found by reviews than by testing.) Security
and reliability are aspects that run through all stages of system design and
implementation and can not be "bolted on" half way to the process. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:32 AM EDT |
MathFox, I agree with your point about the reasonableness clause, but repeat the
further point that if you give something away for free, i.e. no consideration is
received from the customer, then no "sale" has occurred and thus the case for
implied warranty is even less.
If I sell you a glass of lemonade and it tastes of raw chicken brains, you are
not only entitled to a refund but also potentially further compensation for
consequential loss. This is because the sale creates an implied contract.
If I just *give* you a glass of lemonade and it tastes of raw chicken brains,
you can't sue me for anything because no contract has been created. (I might
have comitted some other offence against public health legislation though!
;)
In this context remember that the GPL is a licence, not a contract. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:34 AM EDT |
David, thank you for the informative link. Simon and Dr. Stupid for
insight.
On laws, I just can't help but see that as a negative, at least until
legislators and judges figure out the tech. I deal with HIPAA in my paid work
sometimes and if you read what they did in that law, it makes your hair stand
on end, and they were actually trying to get it right. Their concept of what is
enough when it comes to security was ...well, not enough to actually get the job
done. How do you solve that problem, when the problem is human-based? My
presumption is that MS has the tech down, so it's just a matter of motivation.
My question is: why aren't they motivated now when it's obvious their name is
mud in the corporate world on this subject? Isn't losing customers enough of a
motive? It's a puzzlement, which is why I am trying to figure out what are the
other possibilities. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:41 AM EDT |
Dr. Stupid and MathFox:
Under German law, apparently, you cannot exclude any warranty completely. If
damages were caused by intention or gross negligence, then you are liable, even
if you gave away the faulty item for free. See http://www.tilljaeger.de/art10.pdf
(pp 17-22) for an explanation how that affects the GPL. Thorsten Winterer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:51 AM EDT |
Dr. Stupid, things can be different in different countries. In the Netherlands
civil law distinguishes between "verbintenissen" (obligations) and
"overeenkomsten" (contracts) and I am not sure in what category the GPL falls.
It reads as a contract and any potential Linux distributor can accept or reject
the conditions in the license. The fact that no money changes hands doesn't
change the fact that an offer from a copyright owner was accepted by a
distributor. (IANAL, but that's how I read Dutch law.)
If I meet you in person and we exchange t-shirts, I think we executed a
contract. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:53 AM EDT |
Some other folks trying to figure out a solution:
See http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200309/m
sg00024.html pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:10 AM EDT |
"Under German law, apparently, you cannot exclude any warranty completely. If
damages were caused by intention or gross negligence, then you are liable, even
if you gave away the faulty item for free. See http://www.tilljaeger.de/art10.pdf
(pp 17-22) for an explanation how that affects the GPL.
Thorsten Winterer • 9/5/03; 2:41:16 AM"
Thorsten, Ernest Jones once described Jung's psychoanalytical theories as
"metaphysical spinach". I would describe the paper you link to as legal
spinach. I have touched on it before, but I may do an in-depth article on it.
First, my understanding is it was more or less commissioned by proprietary
software assn; second, it's just some lawyer's theory; third, it doesn't
actually say what the headlines made it out to say; and fourth, the author
seriously misunderstands how the GPL works and what it means, throwing his or
her conclusions off by a mile. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
I'm not surprised at all that things are different (what constitutes a contract,
the extent of liability) in different countries - for example, I was aware of
the German provision regarding intention or negligence.
MathFox gave the example "If I meet you in person and we exchange t-shirts, I
think we executed a contract." This is also the case in the UK, but if I give
you a T-shirt and receive no consideration in return (consideration doesn't have
to be money, it can be goods, services, or even a promise regarding future
conduct) - i.e. it really is with "no strings attached" then there is no
contract.
However, I do strongly suspect that if I intentionally or through gross
negligence caused the free T-shirt I gave you to be covered in some harmful
subtance, I would be liable under some other (non contractual) legislation here
(UK.) Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:21 AM EDT |
pj, I'd love to see an in-depth analysis. To me it looked like a well founded
analysis of the GPL in relation to German law, but then I'm not a lawyer and
can't distinguish good from bad legalese. Thorsten Winterer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:22 AM EDT |
PJ Wrote: "My presumption is that MS has the tech down, so it's just a matter
of motivation. My question is: why aren't they motivated now when it's obvious
their name is mud in the corporate world on this subject? Isn't losing customers
enough of a motive? It's a puzzlement, which is why I am trying to figure out
what are the other possibilities."
The answer is rather simple - it has not cost them customers, at least to this
point. MS has mediocre to poor products, but they are an excellent company
(from a corporate $ka-ching$ perspective). They are very much aware of the
issues with their products and they are very much aware of their customers'
feedback.
Up until recently nobody at all gave a hoot. No matter how bad things were, it
was accepted that this was "just the way (microsoft) software is" (flawed and
buggy). When people (customers) began to actually say "I am looking at
alternatives and it is because your software is so buggy/insecure", then you get
a memo proclaiming "Trustoworthy Computing". They didn't decide to (attempt to)
make their products more secure because it is the right thing to do - they did
it because they ran the numbers and said if we spend X dollars on security we
can make back x++ dollars in return.
I read the piece that you referenced and I have to say I concur with the
gentelman from General Motors. I am sure I am in the minority (on this and
other tech-related sites) with this view. Raving Luni[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:25 AM EDT |
legally, does this make sense?
if they send me an invoice i'll sue them (or report them, not sure how
it works) for mail fraud and extortion. you can't send invoices w/o
justification. go file papers to trade as "floyd's office supplies"
and open a bank account in that name. then invoice a few companies for
pens and paper giving those banking details - see what happens next.
some companies will pay you. some will call and question it. and
eventually one will alert an post and they'll send the gardaí or a pack
of solicitors after you.
companies couldn't function if it was legal to send their accounts
departments bogus invoices. neither could your average joe on the street.
just imagine if every month you had to figure out which phone bill was
real and which wasn't? "oh that kevin lyda and his 'lyda phone company'
invoice nearly had me this month i tell ya!"
and EVEN IF sco's copyrights are violated, they can't invoice end users.
maybe my assumption that the law has common sense goes too far, but i
fail to see how it can be legal to allow copyright holders to go after
end-users and still have a functioning economy.
not that long ago some singer (i think it was george michael?) lost a
copyright infringment case. a song he recorded was a copy of someone
elses. that person got damages from him. can that person now invoice
every person who bought that album? if so that means that every cd you
own is an unknown liability.
in fact the same is true for every book, every software product, every
copyrighted work in your house could potentially cost you hundreds of
euro. each.
if sco can legally invoice every linux user then anyone who has ever
purchased copyrighted works is in fiscal peril. all public libraries
should be shut down immediately since it's possible that they could
bankrupt the town/city/county/province/state/nation that owns them.
if sco can legally invoice every linux user then it means that no sale
of a copyrighted work is ever final. ever. how can an information
economy work if no sale of information is final? kevin lyda[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:19 AM EDT |
John, you need to look at what was under dispute in the cases concerning EULAs.
An EULA is a grant of rights to do some things to a copyrighted work (e.g. to
install it on more than one machine), in return for which the user agrees to
certain conditions (such as the warranty disclaimer.)
There are some things you, as the *owner* of a copy of a copyrighted computer
program (on CD, say) can do *without* a grant of licence and thus without having
to accept any EULA offered. You can install it and use it on one machine. You
can reverse engineer it for interoperability or educational purposes. And so
forth, as defined in the copyright laws of your country.
The rights you have under copyright legislation need not be inviolable rights:
that is to say, while it may not be legal to sign oneself into slavery, it is
probably legal for you to agree not to reverse engineer a product as part of a
transaction.
EULAs are ubiquitous because people are led to believe that they cannot legally
run a program they have bought on CD without agreeing to a grant of licence.
That is false, as Eblen Moglen and others have pointed out. Software companies
use techniques like "by opening this packet you accept the EULA" or making the
software display an EULA during the installation, and it's very hard to bypass
these. Such techniques can invalidate the EULA in some jurisdictions, but
actually this isn't the core issue - which is that users (a) don't read EULAs
and (b) accept them without thinking.
Suppose you bought a new car and on delivery the dealer said "ahh, before I give
you the keys you must sign this agreement" and shoved something the length of a
typical MS EULA under your nose. I don't think your reaction would be very
positive. In fact you might well tell the dealer to take the car back, refund
your money and then report them to the Office of Fair Trading (in the UK.)
It's taken a long time in other areas (banking, medicine) for consumers to stop
taken what they're given and start asserting their power. It might well take a
long time too in what is actually still a very young market and industry. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:26 AM EDT |
John; your rant on EULA's and copyright isn't that bad; it's more of a political
question that has to be resolved in US Congress. I don't think GrokLaw is the
place for a political discussion, let's stick to the laws and the facts.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:46 AM EDT |
Dick gringas wrote:
"Liability is the Sword of Damocles we all have to live with, whether it occurs
when our dog bites the neighbor, our employee damages a client's property or a
product we sell injures a customer. Why should the software industry be exempt?
"
That's one part of the answer. The other is to have a competitive market-
products in competitive markets tend to be better products. And one good way to
have a competitive market is to come down hard on companies that behave
unethically.... wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:57 AM EDT |
PJ Wrote: "My presumption is that MS has the tech down, so it's just a matter of
motivation. "
I'm not so sure of that. When it comes to R&D, M$ is pretty dismal. From the
start they have approached software development from a "let's not develop it
here" angle. M$ didn't develop DOS, they bought it from someone. Ditto for any
number of their products. At the time, there were other far superior products
even in the DOS world, like ConCurrrent DOS.
While they did develop NT, it was not done by their own programmers- they hired
Dave Cutler (the VMS man) and crew from DEC (Cutler stayed on afterwards). What
Billy and Stevie are real good at is marketing, and figuring new and innovative
ways to extract cash from their customers. I don't know if Gates still claims
to chart the software architectures used by M$, but if he does it probably isn't
a good idea. Years ago I looked at his Basic compiler code (100%
Billy-programmed) and wasn't real impressed. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:05 AM EDT |
kevin:
"and EVEN IF sco's copyrights are violated, they can't invoice end users. maybe
my assumption that the law has common sense goes too far, but i fail to see how
it can be legal to allow copyright holders to go after end-users and still have
a functioning economy."
I found a worrying paragraph in the German author's rights law
("Urheberrechtsgesetz") (see http://www.transpatent.com ->
Gesetzesvolltexte -> Urheberrechtsgesetz) :
If I read it correctly, §32a (1) says that if an author has given another
person the right to use her work, and the use gives the user capital gains that
are clearly disproportionate in relation to the reward of the author, then the
author has the right to claim additional rewards. §32a (2) says that if the
rights to use for transferred to a third person, then the third person is
directly liable to the author of the work.
I.e., if Linux did contain i.p. from SCO, then a German end user would be
liable, even if the distro was bought from e.g. SuSE.
OTOH, the German patent law says that patent protection does not extend to cover
home users, so you can use a protected invention at home without having to pay
license fees. And I assume that copyright protection is even weaker than patent
protection, so that home users would not be liable, "only" commercial users of
Linux. Provided, SCO would ever prove that Linux contained their i.p., that is.
Which I doubt. Thorsten Winterer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:19 AM EDT |
Dr Stupid,
To take your car dealer analogy even further, you also have to imagine that,
once you refused to sign the agreement the car dealer told you to take up
getting your money back for the car with the manufacturer. Then, when you
contact the manufacturer, they tell you to take it up with the car dealer.
Seems ubsurd, but if you read the EULA it says you can get a refund if you don't
agree. But, if that EULA came with a new Dell or Toshiba, try calling them up
and asking for the money back for the software you don't agree to license. Dell,
Toshiba, etc. will tell you to call Microsoft. Microsoft will tell you to call
the computer maker.
I agree, one day consumers will understand how much they are getting shafted and
politicans who spout on about "free markets" will have to admit that the current
situation isn't particularly free. Mark Levitt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:36 AM EDT |
Mark Levitt wrote:
"I agree, one day consumers will understand how much they are getting shafted
and politicans who spout on about "free markets" will have to admit that the
current situation isn't particularly free. "
No, our markets are not particularly free, but our unfree markets make certain
individuals alot of cash. I married a woman from the PRC; we met when I was
back in school taking some grad courses. I learned alot about America and China
by talking to her- she wasn't your average Chinese (had traveled worldwide,
dealt with the West in business matters, etc.- she did not have an insular
worldview). She told me that the Chinese think the Americans are the "real
communists," because over in China they have none of the free-lunch type
programs that America has. Not much of a welfare system either- the state only
feeds and clothes people as a last resort. If someone is in need of being fed
and clothed, and they have ANY living relatives, the courts make the relatives
support this person. And in many ways their markets are freer than ours are
also, because the goal is economic development, and they realize too many
controls kills development. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:41 AM EDT |
The Linus story is OLD news.... real old. Chris Curran[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:43 AM EDT |
This whole set of posts about disclaimers, end-user rights, EULAs, consumers,
etc, reminds me of the occasion I bought a Britannica atlas in 1989. I'd paid
up for it and was happy with it, then the Britannica crew started to send me
dunning letters. I rang up my local Member of Parliament's office and asked
about it. The advice I received was simple - tell them just what it was you
bought, explain that it wasn't the entire Encyclopedia, and threaten the Small
Claims Court.
Britannica backed down, and apologized. Wesley Parish[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
Though I respect Linus' work, I think he would be better served if he'd remain
conducive to the cause. Phrases such as "They're smoking crack" aren't normally
attributed to those trying to win public opinion -even if it is against SCO.
It's this, along side ESR's lengthy Star Wars-esc Call to Arms rants, that
serves to undermine the free software community's position to those unware of
the true issues in this case. Stephen Henry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 06:07 AM EDT |
Thorsten Winterer, it might be useful if you could find any case history
relating to the German law. That would clarify how it has been interpreted in
the past. Leaving aside Linux for a moment, I find it hard to believe that the
author of a free (but copyrighted) text "How to make a fortune on the internet"
could subsequently go after those who made money from the *ideas* therein.
It's more likely that the law refers to money made from the work *directly* -
e.g. a publishing company grossly underpaying an author for publishing rights
and making a ton of cash from selling the book.
But this is speculation, so some concrete examples would be helpful. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 06:09 AM EDT |
Steve wrote:
"Though I respect Linus' work, I think he would be better served if he'd remain
conducive to the cause. Phrases such as "They're smoking crack" aren't normally
attributed to those trying to win public opinion -even if it is against SCO.
It's this, along side ESR's lengthy Star Wars-esc Call to Arms rants, that
serves to undermine the free software community's position to those unware of
the true issues in this case. "
Well, the Linus comment is very old news, but it seemed refreshing to me to see
a man who calls a spade a spade. It is a much truer statement than something
like "The people at SCO have issues;" which is a typical sanitized and
business-ized comment that doesn't really cut to the heart of the matter <G>.
It's designed to make one's position and opinions vague and "protect us from
getting sued" and "allow us not to upset anyone we may have to do business
with"- not to convey truth.
But I will agree that esr goes a bit off sometimes- like with the comments
regarding the <supposed> DOS attacks on SCO- I think the man was manipulated
by SCO or a SCO flunky, and what he spouted was definitely counter-productive.
This had the sewer smell of a sh*t instigated from MickeySoft's dirty tricks
division. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 06:12 AM EDT |
Dr Stupid, I'll try to find more information. Can't make any promises on how
fast (and if!) I can find something, though. Thorsten Winterer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 06:35 AM EDT |
Joe W, thanks for straightening me out on Novell. I think the Noorda connection
made my mind a little more cloudy than ususal and I failed to verify the facts.
I checked and Novell is held 58% by institutions and 0.12% by insiders.
SCO/Caldera is owned 15% by institutions and 46% by insiders. So...my question
on influence has been answered. I like companies that don't have a bunch of
insiders ;) GenWer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 06:40 AM EDT |
I wonder if the new SCO story in Australia about invoices could be connected to
a previous SCO story from Australia. I don't know
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,6873464%5e15317%
5e%5enbv%5e15306,00.html quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 06:42 AM EDT |
I found one sample: http://www.ceatl.org/r
esolutions/Resolutioneng.rtf
Clause 36 is apparently known as the "BestSeller clause" and its purpose was to
stop publishers ripping off authors with flat fees. A recent tweak to German law
has made this a right the author cannot sign away. The sample, and the other
mentions I've found all relate to percentage royalties, i.e. to *sales* of the
work and its derivatives.
So it would seem that in the case of SuSE selling boxed Linux sets, a copyright
holder might be able to ask for a proportional percentage of the revenue, but
couldn't ask for millions on the grounds that users of the product had, say,
saved money on their TCO.
Similarly, the third party clause is to cover one publisher selling its
exploitation rights to another.
The applicability to something released under the GPL is unclear, since in this
case the author might just put his work "out there" for anyone to download. I
don't know whether downloading such a program would be considered by a court to
be entering into a contract with the author. Given the German courts' pretty
good track record to date on the SCO case, I doubt it. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 06:46 AM EDT |
Another quote from the interview
SCO and its lawyers say that even if that were a solution, they would still
want damages for the illegal use of their code in Linux until the "fix" was
implemented. Who, they ask, would compensate them under this scenario? Your
thoughts on this?
Hey, until they can be bothered to show something real, I don't think it's even
worth discussing.
THe correct answer is that, since they didn't register the copyright, they
legally aren't entitled for damages for past infringement. (Assuming
infringement can be proved.) Ruidh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 06:49 AM EDT |
Steve - While on the surface, your comments about how Linus and ESR 'undermine'
the cause with statements like 'they are smoking crack', or documents like ESR's
indignant Open Letter to Darl McBride do ring a little true. To the casual
observer, these things may feasibly do some damage.
However, open source advocates have been called terrorists, endured witless
'pass the bong' ordinances from lapdog 'analysts' and, worst of all, have been
accused of theft and incompetence. While I consider the 'They are all on IBM's
payroll' statements to be outright goading that got the desired results, you
must remember that, while this issue is huge to many of us, it means nothing to
the majority of people out there. Most people don't know who Linus or ESR are,
and they are not likely to be reading their comments, position papers, open
letters, etc. Those who do care are already aware of the vernacular of geeks,
and no doubt can tell the difference between a jest ('They are smoking crack')
and a truly malicious attack ('They stole our code').
Ultimately, the courts will decide who wins, so I don't think anyone is 'trying
to win public opinion' here. Also, as this amazing site demonstrates, there is
no shortage of dignified, well researched comment being tirelessly generated to
refute SCO's 'case'.
If you want a taste of some truly juvenile and damaging anti-SCO blather, check
out my blog:
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blog
spot.com
You can blame me if everything goes south, but leave Linus alone. Tim
Ransom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
Dr. Stupid, this §32a UrhG (the new "bestseller clause", which replaced the
old §36) was introduced in 2002, and it is only applicable to contracts
signed after 28th March 2002. (see http://remus.jura.uni-s
b.de/web-dok/20020022.html) The old §36 did not contain a clause that
in the case of transfered rights to use, the end user is directly liable. So a
copyright holder of elements added to Linux before 28.03.2002 might go after
SuSE but not after the end user. (that's how I read it, but i'm a computer
scientist, not a lawyer)
I don't know if there was already a court case with reference to §32a,
since it's only a year old. Anybody here who can access the juris.de
database? Thorsten Winterer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 07:13 AM EDT |
Ummm...Hey Darl- pass the bong and don't bogart that joint <G>.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
US Postal Inspection Service - read this whole entry for why I think you should
complain NOW, not when you get the alleged invoices.
COMPLAIN HERE
https:
//www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/MailFraudComplaint.htm
A lot of people are saying, "wait until you get an invoice to get USPS
involved." Here's some information on invoice fraud as the USPS sees it.
http://www.usps.
com/websites/depart/inspect/falsbill.htm
But why wait? There's already an extortion racket operating, a co-ordinated
racket involving advertising, press releases, conference calls, interviews and
staged presentations and part of that extortion racket campaign was conducted by
mail. 1500 letter were sent to corporations as part of a shakedown. The mails
have already been used in an extremely suspicious manner.
When you complain make sure to include a few links to invoice /threat stories
http://www.linuxworld.com/story
/33993.htm
http://www.idg.com.sg/idgwww.nsf/unidlookup/8A82F436CD6D4CA4482
56D97000A5F6C?OpenDocument
Draw a diagram for the US Postal Inspection Service showing a pattern of conduct
using the mails to defraud, a pattern that started with those letters.
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81712
,00.html
Some phrases to use may be
'using the mails as part of a co-ordinated campaign of fraud, some computer
analyst types have already called this entire scheme "extortion"'
'playing around, using the Internet to make actual threats, combined with
suggestively threatening mails'
'making actual threats in the media, in interviews, over the internet, in press
releases, and as part of the company's quarterly analyst conference calls, and
using the mails to send veiled threats that reinforce these other
threats.'
Sanjeev[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 07:37 AM EDT |
Does it really talk about "contracts signed"? If so then it's even more dubious
that GPLed code would be covered. In any case, SCO could only ask for a
proportionate share of the revenue generated by (for example) SuSE's sales, it
cannot place its own price on the material. Given that the kernel is only a
small part of the software in an SuSE boxed set, and the other software is not
legally a derivative work of the kernel, even if SCO had written *all* the
kernel themselves they could only get about 5% of the price of an SuSE boxed set
- 1 or 2 dollars. And they couldn't get any money for copies given away for
free. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 07:44 AM EDT |
Oh, one more thing: if prior to 2002 only the first person in the chain could be
asked for fair royalties, that wouldn't be SuSE. It would be whoever put SCO's
code into Linux (assuming it wasn't SCO.) And assuming that this wasn't with
SCO's permission (for the sake of argument I'm imagining that there was
misappropriated code) this clause would be irrelevant as there was no contract -
instead we would have straightforward copyright infringement.
The issue is nevertheless interesting since it could be of relevance to anyone
selling GPLed code in Germany. Are there any other countries with similar
provisions guaranteeing authors "fair royalties"? To my knowledge the UK and USA
don't. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 07:51 AM EDT |
PJ, Keep up the good work on this. I'm more than impressed with your work on
the subject.
I've no idea if html tags are honoured so forgive any stray ' ' you might
see.
With regard to Enderle's comments on governments getting interested in
platforms, and I know that I could be getting into tin-foil hat territory, it's
always handy to check out the PR spin from the biggest company that has the
government's attention. Bear in mind that Microsoft has been playing
'whack-a-mole' with vulnerabilities while talking about trustworthy computing
and touting DRM as a way around the problem of viruses and worms (and lobby
groups 'protected' content), which is in government's best interests to
stop.
I personally believe the next step will be Microsoft touting this PR flak as
real progress in terms of locking down security and might start to try and
challenge *nix on the basis that it doesn't have a product that is _exactly_ the
same. Before anyone starts thinking that government won't be dumb enough to
fall for this, go check out Arlene McCarthy's recent press releases on software
patents in the EU. It's a scary world once the incompetant start dictating to
the competant.
James[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 07:52 AM EDT |
http://ww
w.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/04/1062548947262.html
O'Shaughnessy [regional general manager for the company in Australia and New
Zealand] said he was unsure about the question of invoices being sent in the US
even though there are reports on the web about just such a thing being
planned. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 08:00 AM EDT |
No, it's not "contracts signed" (sorry for that), it talks about "Verträge"
(contracts) und "entstandene Sachverhalte" - uhm - "emerged
circumstances/facts"??? Can't really translate it, so I thought "contract" (in
the broadest sense) would cover it.
The only reference I found so far is here: http://www.grur.de/Seiten/Themen/entscheidungen/leitsaetz
e/2001/Urheber1.html#Anchor-UrhG-10615
(it's about the old §36, and states among other things that the additional
rewards can be declined if the author's contribution to a compound work was only
ancillary)
BTW, let's not forget that this UrhG law deals with the *author's* rights, not
the copyright holder's rights. So it's (probably) only AT&T, not SCO, who could
ask SuSE for royalties. Is there anything that SCO claims i.p. for that was
actually developed when the rights to UNIX belonged to Caldera/SCO? Thorsten
Winterer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 08:01 AM EDT |
"Though I respect Linus' work, I think he would be better served if he'd remain
conducive to the cause. Phrases such as "They're smoking crack" aren't normally
attributed to those trying to win public opinion"
I suspect that Linus is incredulous to the claims. He's remained a rock up to
the point of that interview, staying out of the way of the wider debate in the
hope that it will all come out in the wash. But I suspect that he has limits,
and the changing SCO position on everything from the infringements, to who found
them, to even their own history has meant that virtually everyone even remotely
informed on the case agrees with him.
Yes, there is a moral high ground, but a rabid dog like SCO will just stick
around biting people without some soundbite comments from the Free software
foundation 'personalities'...we just have to avoid descending to the level of
virus writers and script kiddies in petulant, arbitary vigilantism. Personally
I think the Samba guys had the best viewpoint, as this whole case appears to be
trying to poison the GPL by forcing a 'change' which could be pointed to as
something that could happen in the future.
As a brief aside, it would be useful to timeline the places where people have
offered to remove the offending code. The SCO Australia sockpuppet did mention
that SCO's actions (litigation) are a direct result of refusals to remove the
offending code, but doesn't mentioned who they contacted. In relation to the
case, this is the linchpin, IMO, especially to Red Hat.
James[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 08:33 AM EDT |
"BTW, let's not forget that this UrhG law deals with the *author's* rights, not
the copyright holder's rights. So it's (probably) only AT&T, not SCO, who could
ask SuSE for royalties."
True (though as I mentioned I don't think SuSE is the point at which the
royalties come in, it's the person/entity who first put the AT&T code into the
kernel.)
I think that AT&T though would be highly unlikely to pop up in Germany asking
for money - it could be argued that the large sums of money they generated from
selling UNIX licences were not disproporionately small.
"Is there anything that SCO claims i.p. for that was actually developed when
the rights to UNIX belonged to Caldera/SCO?"
As far as I know, the only development that went on was either Caldera's
voluntary contributions to the kernel or the Monterey project. SysV UNIX was in
mothballs because originally Caldera bought Old SCO's code in order to merge it
with Linux.
SCO's allegations revolve around (1) direct copying of the old SysV code (pre
2002), (2) JFS/NUMA etc for which SCO admit they don't own the copyright, and
(3) so called derivative methods/concepts which are not covered by
copyright.
So it's pretty clear that SCO have no route to pursue in Germany via this
particular law. Dr Stupid[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 08:42 AM EDT |
I agree with Linus that SCO-scum is smoking crack - metaphorically speaking of
course, but who is quibbling with the end results? Linus is not trying to kiss
up to anyone, he is being himself just as I am: blunt and straight to the point.
I don't think his lifestyle gives him the luxury to suffer fools gladly, and he
probably does not have the inclination to do so either. I would guess that if
you give him facts, he will work with them. Waste his time by giving him smoke
or other nonsense, and he'll blow back about a few things. I think that Linus is
very much like the rest of us, especially when we are in non-nonsense mode.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right:
auto;">blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:25 AM EDT |
pj,
re the "legal spinach": you wrote that the paper was "commissioned by
proprietary software assn". Could it be you're thinking of the paper written by
Gerald Spindler for the VSI (software industry association)? (http://www.vsi.de
/inhalte/aktuell/studie_final_safe.pdf , in German. Critical review in
English here: http://www.if
ross.de/ifross_html/home2_2003.html#ARTIKEL28a) Thorsten Winterer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:39 AM EDT |
I've been thinking a little about what will actually happen if this actually
goes to trial.
1. Both sides will have to rely on experts. Independent types that will
analyze SCO's claims and say either it came from SCO Unix or not.
2. The actual coders, if possible, will take the stand. They will have to
answer tough questions of what they had available to them when they coded the
section in question.
3. People near and around the SMP code team will be brought in even if they
didn't write the code in question. "Did so-and-so have access to _______?"
It will be they said, we said to people who are barely or not technical.
OK I don't have any problem with Linus comments even in this light, but its
clear why SCO did its little show at the conference. They wanted to accomplish
two goals. 1. see what the opposition had to say. I.e. show their cards. 2.
convince SCO loyalists that every thing is fine and under control.
According to ComputerWorld they convinced quite a number of people positively.
We need to remember that its not just about the legal actions of SCO but also
about convincing people the Linux is ready for the Enterprise and more
reliable/better than UnixWare. Linux is IN the Enterprise EVERYWHERE. Just
because you pay a lot of money for SCO doesn't make it better. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 09:50 AM EDT |
Here's a funny story by Drew Streib (on Linux Weekly News) about his adventures
to *give* SCO money for a Linux license. Does this give new meaning to
vaporware? Is there such a thing as vaporlicense? Enjoy.
http://lwn.net/Articles/47881/
Also, if they tell everyone to get a license but don't *really* sell it is that
a legal problem or just a PR problem...hum... GenWer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
Nice little article on whether or not SCO lawsuit is slowing down Linux
http
://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=7117&mode=thread&order=0
I think that there is an effect. Why say your product/site/enterprise has linux
inside if that just brings attention to the evil SCO lawyers? BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:07 AM EDT |
> if they tell everyone to get a license but don't *really* sell it is
Well they better have sold at least two, for their sakes
Because they issued a press release saying they had sold one. If they didn't and
told investors they did, hello SEC.
Second they made statements to the press, saying they had sold a 2nd one, and
maybe more. Same issue. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:10 AM EDT |
BubbaCode wrote:
"They wanted to accomplish two goals. 1. see what the opposition had to say.
I.e. show their cards. 2. convince SCO loyalists that every thing is fine and
under control.
According to ComputerWorld they convinced quite a number of people positively.
"
But they weren'r cross-examined by IBM lawyers at the conference, as they will
be in court.....Oh, BTW, Ms. Laura DiDiot was senior editor, networking, at
ComputerWorld for a time. ComputerWorld's coverage of the SCO lawsuit has been
dismal until very recently. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:14 AM EDT |
ESR Escapes Matrix!
http://timransomsfeeblemind.blog
spot.com
Thanks again
P.S. Sorry for the rant earlier. I actually emoted! Tim Ransom[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:15 AM EDT |
OK, Linus says what he says, when he wants to say it. He does not take himself
so seriously as to hold back what he thinks. There are not many people with his
visibility who are this transparent. All of this fame he has, and yet he seems
to have no real aspirations to the wealth and power? No corporate type will
ever truly understand Linus Torvalds.
But perhaps his reference was to the "million lines" SCO claims. His reference
may be to the subject of what SCO owns not being a millions lines of code, but a
million lines of something else. It would make as much sense as what SCO is
claiming, right up to why they suddenly need that much money, and are willing to
do anything to get it. I.e. they are behaving as the worst of addicts. Marty[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
For those who want more information about Ms. Laura DiDiot- look at http://w
ww.gigaweb.com/Content_PDF/Bios/out/RBI-032000-00028.pdf.
Laura went to Fordham, which is a good school, but earned a degree in
communications, which is pure fluff. Probably prepared her for her job as a
Windows and networking analyst almost as much as her minor in French. I'm
sorry, but nowhere in her bio do I see any mention of her TECHNICAL
qualifications. Has she ever swapped out a NIC, or installed a hub or
configured a router? Administered a network perhaps? I tend to get very
skeptical about these things since I have seen dumb-ass*s with Master's degrees
in CIS that didn't know how to format a floppy disk under windows or write a
genuinely simple bash script.... wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
I disagree with BubbaCode's theory
1. Every indication is they didn't want the slides to leak. The press reported
it was under NDA originally. The initial reports they encouraged is "wow this is
convincing stuff" from their allies. Heise got the pictures despite an NDA. Only
then was it analyzed.
2. Every indication is that these are the slide shows used previously. Ian Lance
Taylor's, the Byte article, and then German guy who didn't sign an NDA, give
general descriptions which closely match either of 2 examples.
3. There is a whiff of a hint of a suggestion that having released the code
slides without NDA to Bob McMillan of IDG, they are using the same stuff again
back under NDA. Their is a McBride interview with Wired, post SCO forum, that
might possibly suggest this - read it carefully. I can't say for sure, whether
they are still using the same slides or not.
4. If they used the slide show we've seen to make allegations against say IBM.
Then turn up in court with a different presentation, and perhaps different
allegations, and say the original slide show was just a ruse. In my view, that
would be almost admitting to having disparaged IBM in an untrue way. IANAL, so
I'm not sure if falls under the definition of trade libel, but I would think it
might be part of the way there, just on that. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
It's amazing what people will say until they find themselves in court and under
oath. Being in court and under oath under the threat of perjury under the
watchful eye of a no-nonsense judge who knows what he or she is doing tends to
snuff out flights of creative fancy such as the ones that SCO-scum has treated
us to for the past six months or so. blacklight[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:22 AM EDT |
I disagree with BubbaCode's theory
1. Every indication is they didn't want the slides to leak. The press reported
it was under NDA originally. The initial reports they encouraged is "wow this is
convincing stuff" from their allies. Heise got the pictures despite an NDA. Only
then was it analyzed.
2. Every indication is that these are the slide shows used previously. Ian Lance
Taylor's, the Byte article, and then German guy who didn't sign an NDA, give
general descriptions which closely match either of 2 examples.
3. There is a whiff of a hint of a suggestion that having released the code
slides without NDA to Bob McMillan of IDG, they are using the same stuff again
back under NDA. Their is a McBride interview with Wired, post SCO forum, that
might possibly suggest this - read it carefully. I can't say for sure, whether
they are still using the same slides or not.
4. If they used the slide show we've seen to make allegations against say IBM.
Then turn up in court with a different presentation, and perhaps different
allegations, and say the original slide show was just a ruse. In my view, that
would be almost admitting to having disparaged IBM in an unfair way. IANAL, so
I'm not sure if falls under the definition of trade libel, but I would think it
might be part of the way there, just on that. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
I disagree with BubbaCode's theory
1. Every indication is they didn't want the slides to leak. The press reported
it was under NDA originally. The initial reports they encouraged is "wow this is
convincing stuff" from their allies. Heise got the pictures despite an NDA. Only
then was it analyzed.
2. Every indication is that these are the slide shows used previously. Ian Lance
Taylor's, the Byte article, and then German guy who didn't sign an NDA, give
general descriptions which closely match either of 2 examples.
3. There is a whiff of a hint of a suggestion that having released the code
slides without NDA to Bob McMillan of IDG, they are using the same stuff again
back under NDA. Their is a McBride interview with Wired, post SCO forum, that
might possibly suggest this - read it carefully. I can't say for sure, whether
they are still using the same slides or not.
4. If they used the slide show we've seen to make allegations against say IBM.
Then turn up in court with a different presentation, and perhaps different
allegations, and say the original slide show was just a ruse. In my view, that
would be almost admitting to having disparaged IBM in an unfair way. IANAL, so
I'm not sure if falls under the definition of trade libel, but I would think it
might be part of the way there, just on that. quatermass - SCO delenda est[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 11:16 AM EDT |
Is there any expectation that the authors of the impuned Linux Kernel software
may sue SCO for Libel?
Libel - is a published or broadcast false and defamatory statement which damages
the reputation of an individual. Herb Calhoun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 11:37 AM EDT |
pj, i read your "formal" request for source material to my posting and am
putting it together. Since you user the word fornal I couldn't just slap a dozen
links on the page :)
I ran into a previous professor who is the head of the IS dept. at one of the
local Community Colleges and she wanted a copy when I was done. She hasn't
really gotten the full Linux story, she is always frightfully busy, so add
twenty nore links :)
Just to let you know, I am not ducking your request.
From the tone of this article I would say you might make a "conspiracy theorist"
yet. Clifton Hyatt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 11:46 AM EDT |
pj, if you are having trouble with your current code for groklaw, Slashdot makes
their code "Slashcode" freely available. That code is obviously robust enough.
Slashcode is used at my previous company. If it is functionly appropriate for
groklaw I am sure shure you would have no shortage of assistance getting it up
and running, including almost certainly from my previous company.
style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">Clifton
Hyatt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
James, that is an excellent suggestion re doing a timeline of offers to remove
the code.
On Linus' choice of words, I was a bit put off by the phrasing, personally, but
I also know that
English isn't his first language, and having learned foreign languages myself, I
know that
you can learn a slang expression and misuse it because of not capturing the full
flavor of
the phrase. I think he's read that expression on places like slashdot or in
emails, because
it's commonly used to mean basically crazy, and just used it without catching
appropriate
context issues.
Thorsten, yes I did confuse the two. But I actually read the one you linked to,
and I stand by
the legal spinach assessment. Thank you for all the links and the in-depth
coverage. You and Dr.
Stupid have brought some matters to my attention I hadn't thought through
clearly before.
Dr Stupid, I agree. You need a new handle. Stupid is what you are not.
On old news, please be aware that my choices of what to put up aren't the same
as on, say, a strictly
news site like /. My purpose is different. I am trying very hard to convince
people, including the many
reporters who use this site as a resource. So sometimes I choose to include
things because of my editorial feel for what is good to say at that point in
time, and sometimes it's used because it ties in with something else that I want
to say, and sometimes it is used because I have finally checked into it and know
it's true and can be
used with accuracy. I try hard not to put anything in an artice, as opposed to
a comment, that I haven't checked carefully myself. I didn't put up anything
about what the code was or wasn't until now on Groklaw, because I wasn't sure
myself, there were different opinions, and not being a programmer, it took some
time to decide how to handle that. Having now decided that I can put it up, I
wanted to do so in order to have a complete record of the history of this case.
That is a secondary goal, and I don't mean secondary in importance.
Anyway, just letting you know my methods and why I do what I do.
I do believe that convincing the public is vital and that what "leaders" say is
important. Juries are made up of the general public. Judges are in that same
category. And that is the third purpose behind the site, to consistently and as
often as necessary to put out the truth, so FUD falls flat. It can only thrive
when people don't know any better. If I didn't believe it mattered, I surely
wouldn't be losing sleep doing Groklaw. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 11:54 AM EDT |
Slow day here, so I went to the SCO website and read about the SCO Intellectual
Property License for Linux. They had a phone number displayed, so I called
them. Couldn't get directly to sales, so I talked to a fairly flustered
"Customer Care" person. I told her that I wanted to get the low-down on this
SCO end user licensing deal, and told her that I had been using several 2.4
kernel distros, and wanted to know if SCO was going to send me an invoice.
She became more flustered at this point- took my name and number, and I am
waiting for a call from SCO sales. Should be interesting. Oh yeah- she asked
me if I used my Linux for home or business use. I said both, and asked her
where the heck my invoice was because I had notified SCO that I was using 2.4
distros over a month ago and provided them with my address and all that.
The response almost had me rolling on the floor with laughter. "We're not
sending out invoices at this time- we're only taking credit card orders!" My
response wasn't "I wasn't born yesterday," but "Sorry, I can't pay up until I
see an invoice." Should be fun to yank the SCO salesman's chain when/if he
calls back. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
keep up the good work pj. Its important.
This site is referenced A LOT by those with a clue trying to keep everyone
informed about the whole SCO v. IBM thing. BTW you would know better then me,
is the description I gave of a court case on this accurate? Would it most
likely be a jury or just a judge? Can venue change or is it Utah all the way?
These things can be settled out of court, when would it be tipping point for a
settlement metting? Does the jury and/or judge get to look at the code or is it
just expert testimony?
Mostly just curious. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
Here is part of what I read on the SCO website: "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. "
So, when/if the salesman calls back, I will act as though I am very concerned
about this Linux licensing deal, and want to "continue to run my business
uninterrupted without misusing SCO's Intellectual Property. Since I have run
these 2.4 kernel distros for a long time, and in a business environment, I am
surely eligible to pay up. If they ask me for a cc number, well- I will demand
that invoice first, for my "accounting records." Might be interesting..... wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:17 PM EDT |
Clifton; Thanks for your offer to help :) We allready chose a software package
for the new site (GeekLog). The new site
is up and running in test mode now and I don't want to risk breaking things (and
rewriting conversion scripts) this close to the move. MathFox[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
I'd have to agree with blacklight - I was always found it interesting how much
peoples stories changed between my interviews & the subsequent report to the
judge (I was a P.O. - for those who don't know what that is - Probation Officer
- my job was to be the "eyes & ears" of the court (judge), and to make some sort
of treatment recomendation based on all information I could find as to what was
going "wrong" in that persons life... It didn't seem to matter how well
educated or non educated ect., peolple where always more restrained & cautiouse
about what they said when the judge or attorney was staring at them asking the
same questions. It was often compleat denials of information I had documented
them as providing...
Take P.J.'s advice, document everything & if you run into something that hasn't
been linked in here, link it. When it comes time to sit in the seat the more
documentaion of those uncomfortable facts the harder it becomes to "fudge" what
you meant...
And P.J., this site is great, restored my faith that there could still be
intelligent conversations not full of flames on the 'net...I recommend reading
it to all my clients & freinds.
Thomas Thomas LePage[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 12:32 PM EDT |
MathFox, Rock On! Clifton Hyatt[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
pj,
you HAVE to comment on this one:
ht
tp://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nf/20030905/bs_nf/22226
Actually an article with some research and thought behind it. One thing that
should be noted here. SCO is not MS. The unix business is actually growing
overall if you inlcude linux, hp-ux, aix, max os X, etc. SCO SHARE of this
market is what is declining. Users of SCO can usually easily switch to
something else, such as Sun.
If you want to increase market SHARE you don't go pissing of potential customers
already in the unix market. You bet this will backfire on SCO. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:44 PM EDT |
Linus uses "Smoking Crack" or "On Drugs" to describe "Wacking thing to do"
and it's hard to know if he intends all of the negative things it infers.
He's said that about me before when he didn't know why I had spent the time
to code something he thought was "insane". And I was somewhat offended,
yes, and it made it into the trade press (but my project went huge anyway
:-)
J J[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:45 PM EDT |
Now SCO is may be going after SGI J. Hendricks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
J,
uClinux ROCKS. We use it on a board that only costs $32 to make. No kidding.
uClinux is a BIG reason why Linux is in the enterprise and going to make linux
everywhere. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:48 PM EDT |
forgot the link: http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1
104_2-5072061.html J. Hendricks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:50 PM EDT |
NEW story, heavily SCO slanted, at http://www.newsfactor.com
/perl/story/22226.html
SCO's Road to Salvation
""SCO can still license Unixware or SCO Open Server even if they lose this
case," Haff pointed out. [not if IBM wins the the patent argument.]
IDC analyst Dan Kusnetzky ... questioned SCO's continued success in the
software realm. "One cannot hope to have a long-term relationships with
customers or suppliers once you threaten them."
Forrester analyst Ted Schadler also sees alternate revenue streams in the
company's future. ... "They could make that problem go away by spinning out the
licensing business." he said. "They could sell the licensing business to IBM,
for example, and keep the software business." [yeah, sure they can. Sell the
right to collect illegal licence fees to the company that is suing them for
violating enouhg patents to shut down their software sales. I can certainly see
that happening.] Tsu Dho Nimh[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
Re libel case against SCO. I think this would be an interesting idea, especially
if pursued in the UK.
I spoke to a lawyer over lunch today (not getting formal advice you understand)
who confirmed that libel of a business is still a valid tort - the difference
with libel of a person is that malice is a requirement for a business to claim
it. The best bit is with the truth defense (i.e. the defendant says that the
defamatory claim was true, surely SCOs only possibility) under UK law the burden
of proof falls with the defendant.
So if SCO were sued for libel by a linux-supplying firm over here, SCO's only
viable defense would be to prove their claims. This would have the effect of
forcing out their evidence (if it were to exist). Dr Drake[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
Licenses sold
I think it might be worth trying to document what licenses SCOsource has
actually sold so far.
The first one to Microsoft, noone is really sure what it is for except that it
might be related to "Services for Unix" or something to do with Posix
compatibility. Where MS would have obtained infringing code from to need a
license is an interesting question, possibilities are either that they still had
Xenix source code but no license to use it which seems unlikely, they had
missapropriated it from the Linux kernel but MS seem scared enough of the GPL
they probalby wouldn't risk that or they didn't have the code but wanted to give
SCO some money. No-one seems to know if MS got any stock options on this deal
which could have cancelled out the license cost.
The next licensee was Sun. This was supposedely for some device drivers for
Solaris/x86. I really hope that Sun have checked that those drivers aren't
identical to ones that were in Linux before Unixware supported the same devices.
Sun already had an SVRx license but it didn't include modern x86 device drivers.
Sun got a pile of stock options which at SCOs current share price are worth
about as much as the license cost.
The third license was an undisclosed Linux using Fortune 500 company. Press
release here.
No-one knows what they paid or if they got any stock options. I'm sure I read
that SCO had said this company was not Microsoft and I'm pretty sure I posted
the link in another comment but I can't find it. Will the new site have a search
facility?
There has been talk that a second fortune 500 company has signed up for the
linux compliance license but I haven't seen any hard evidence. I can find
stories like this that
mention another fortune 500 company signing up but the date corresponds to the
first compliance license so it is another license but only the first compliance
license. Has anyone got a good link for a second compliance license.
Looking at all this I also noticed that SCOs last press release was back on 19
Aug. There have been no press releases about invoices being sent etc. Is this
because they don't want to officially say they are sending invoices or is it
because they want to create a share sales window? Adam Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:16 PM EDT |
Tsu Dho Nimh - The Newsfactor story is the same one that Bubba Code linked on
Yahoo.
One error you missed
"For its courtroom battles, SCO has retained star legal gun David Boies" -
except they haven't, Boise has handed over to newcommer Heise
also
""Much of Linux's appeal is that it's cheap," he noted" - this has been much
discussed here before, the fact that source code is available and it is reliable
has got a lot more to do with its use. The reason users wouldn't pay if the case
was proven is because the license would destroy the development process. Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
re: Here's a funny story by Drew Streib (on Linux Weekly News) about his
adventures to *give* SCO money for a Linux license.
I am bewildered by this. I have been assuming, like everyone else, that SCO's
plan was to scare Linux users into giving them lots of money for licenses they
don't need.
But if that is the case, then they would have put gotten the sales program going
immediately. But it has been a whole month since the licensing program started,
and still no way to make a purchase.
Does this mean they aren't really trying to sell licenses? If so, why? Or are
they just really totally incompetent? Anybody have any ideas? And has anybody
else tried to buy a license? david l.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:23 PM EDT |
Dr Drake - re Bringing a Libel action in England:
SCO would have to prove their defamatory claims were true, OR not malicious. I
think
they would go for "not malicious". They look fairly malicious to me, but that's
probably where the
argument would be.
Bringing libel actions is notoriously expensive, particularly if you lose:
several prominent people have gone bankrupt when libel suits failed. (Johnathan
Aitken comes to mind). amcguinn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:28 PM EDT |
Tsu, pj,
After reading the same article it occured to me. We have all suspected this was
about money. But let's complete the thought.
May be this is a cheap way to raise capital like venture capital without having
to spin off ownership rights. MS pony ups $10Mill. A few others kick in
smaller amounts behind the lead investor (just like a group VC deal). Canopy
uses SCO to go for some long shot money with the license stuff. They gut SCO.
Drop the suit. Take the money and put in what they really want to spend it on.
Its legal and doesn't involve running VC in and out with their questions. You
keep more ownership of the company. They also get the plus up, which they might
not have anticipated, of the stock rising so much. Usually just sueing someone
and generating some PR does not cause the stock to jump like it has. They can
use the inflated stock as a purchasing weapon. Only bad thing here is the
IBM/Redhat counter-suits. They would have to settle those somehow for this to
work.
Tsu: one of the things these analysis in this article don't seem to understand
is how easy it is to switch from SCO to something else. Unlike MS, your apps
will probably run or can be compiled to run on other unix like platforms. It's
not a 15 year decision anymore. Its 1 year decision to run unix or windows,
other than that OS's can be swapped out just like hardware. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:30 PM EDT |
david,
I'm going with incompetent on this one. Seriously, try to buy UnixWare from
them. They are just stupid. BubbaCode[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
david i wrote:
"Does this mean they aren't really trying to sell licenses? If so, why? Or are
they just really totally incompetent? Anybody have any ideas? And has anybody
else tried to buy a license? "
Sure did. E-mailed SCO over a month ago, told them all the distros I was
running on machines for business use, and asked for an invoice. No response.
Very slow today- so I called SCO and asked them to invoice me for my 2.4 kernel
distro linux usage. they wouldn't- said they are only "taking cc orders." (See
my earlier posts).
The Customer Care person said they were not mailing invoices and sales would
call me back. Haven't received a call yet. SCO's "plan that isn't a plan" is
falling apart rapidly.
Oh yeah- if I ever do see an invoice, I meet with someone from the state's AG's
office, said invoice in hand. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
P.J., of course IANAL (and we all know you aren't one either), but can you shed
any light at all
on the possibility that, if one were to contact SCO and request a license
invoice, this would
put a real kink in taking any action against SCO for sending the license?
In other words, how
can one file legal action against a company for that company attempting to fill
the customer's
request?
If that theory holds any water, I wonder if we're shooting ourselves in the foot
when attempting to
get ourselves billed by SCO for using their alleged IP. Steve Martin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:17 PM EDT |
Bubba, the main goal, in my mind, is to destroy the GPL, with money a
consequential result thereof. pj[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:23 PM EDT |
ecprod wrote:
"If that theory holds any water, I wonder if we're shooting ourselves in the
foot when attempting to
get ourselves billed by SCO for using their alleged IP. "
Not at all, and here is why. SCO has threatened me, a business user, on their
website. If I call and request that they send an invoice for what they claim I
owe them, I am in no way telling them that I want to pay them anything- only
that I want to see what this company claims that I owe them. And that's how it
was presented for me by a friend who is an attorney at the AG's office.
And here is how one requests an invoice- "SCO salesman, if you say I owe your
company money, please send me an invoice so that I may examine it. In no means
am I requesting purchase of any sort of license from you, because I have already
paid for my Linux distro." If they do send an invoice, I hear it will get them
in real hot water.
In other words, SCO threatened me via their website. Put up or shut up. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:34 PM EDT |
Oh yeah- one more thought- why is SCO only accepting credit card orders?
Because they can put ANYTHING THEY WANT on the receipt for that order. Sort of
absolving themselves of any liability in the matter........ wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:37 PM EDT |
DirectTV gets slapped with some of what SCO needs:
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/
6865 MajorLeePissed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
Adam Baker: Re: Miscrosoft SCO License
I don't think Microsoft is involved with any of the SCO shenanigans. Microsoft
is greedy and plays dirty, but it ain't stupid. They still a federal judge with
her foot standing on their coporate neck. Them being under the eye of the
federal judge. If they are caught in any dirty tricks, it could have grave
consequences.
My own opinion is that Microsoft bought the license irregardless of whether they
needed it or not. Microsoft say a way of getting back at IBM, Linux (and as
things have turned out) the GPL. And they could do it with clean hands by
purchasing a SCO License for X millions of dollars. With 40 billion in the bank,
that's petty cash. Stephen Johnson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:54 PM EDT |
The IBM Linux T.V. ad is out!
Posted on
IBM's site in multiple video formats.
Quite powerful, even Mohammad Ali is there! tamarian[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:57 PM EDT |
The comment is awsome. It a public slap into the face to SCO. It is
effective counterpoint to the FUD that SCO has been spouting out over
Linux and the GPL Stephen Johnson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 03:58 PM EDT |
Argh. I meant to say "The commercial is awesome. ..." Stephen Johnson[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:07 PM EDT |
From forbes
spotted on Yahoo
SCO's chief financial officer, Robert Bench, has a side job as a partner in a
Utah consulting firm that last year billed SCO for $71,200. Still doesn't
explain why he needs to sell 7,000 shares a month to pay his tax bill. Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
Stephen,
I agree that MS are probably not directly involved but paying somewhere between
7 and 12 million dollars for a license for something you haven't even got and
getting some questionably legal marketing in the process doesn't count as clean
hands in my book.
Unfortunately even if it did become clear to IBM during discovery that that was
what had happened I'm not sure IBM would say as they'd probably rather not have
MS as a co defendant to their counter claims, it does them more good to totally
destroy SCO rather than having to fight the better lawyer MS could afford. Adam
Baker[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:16 PM EDT |
Oh yeah- one more thought- why is SCO only accepting credit card orders? Because
they can put ANYTHING THEY WANT on the receipt for that order. Sort of absolving
themselves of any liability in the matter........
IANAL but a couple of things I could think of ...
1) at the begining of the call state that your recording the phone calls for
audit purposes.
2) Ask for a receipt to be mailed to you along with a hard copy of the
licence.
3) If they put something else (not agreed on over the phone) on the receipt you
could then question the CC transaction with the bank and have them investigate
it. The_Spide[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:33 PM EDT |
I just called SCO Sales to buy a license. I was told that no licenses are
currently being sold. When I asked how 2 licenses were already sold to
companies, I was told...no licences were sold...rather those companies "settled
with SCO" and the license as it were was handled by a contract. The end user
licenses will not be available for at least 1 week.
This REAKS of fraud! How can one company buy something that another company
cannot. The rep also said that licneses were being sold on a user specific
basis what ever that mean. BigTex[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 05 2003 @ 04:37 PM EDT |
The Spide wrote:
"1) at the begining of the call state that your recording the phone calls for
audit purposes. "
Yeah, always have to get that permission with telephone calls. One can get away
with bugging meeting rooms and offices and even their own person, but man- bug a
phone call and you can get into deep doo-doo <G>.
If the SCO salesman ever calls back, I will ask for permission to record the
call. My guess is that the suggestion will fly like a brick. wild bill[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|