decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
McBride Trolls, Hoping You'll Say Something Legally Stupid
Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:38 AM EDT

One thing McBride doesn't lack is chutzpah, and so he has written a crafty open letter to "the Open Source Community". Ostensibly, he would like you to work with SCO to develop a business model for open source software:
A sustainable business model for software development can be built only on an intellectual property foundation. I invite the Open Source community to explore these possibilities for your own benefit within an Open Source model. Further, the SCO Group is open to ideas of working with the Open Source community to monetize software technology and its underlying intellectual property for all contributors, not just SCO.
That of course sounds a little fishy, coming from McBride, who has not evidenced a deep concern for Linux or its coders to date. It's sounds more like the spider inviting the fly to step into the web "to do lunch".

Maybe the news hasn't been able to get over the mountains and into Utah yet, or he'd know the open source community isn't interested in opportunities to monetize software technology with SCO. The responses he is getting might give him a clue.

As usual, you have to read between the lines with SCO. What he has done is present his side of everything to the public at large, twisting the community's position, and he doesn't care what you say back, I don't believe, unless of course you'd sincerely be interested in selling out or would be so kind as to say something usefully stupid that he can trot out in the press or in a court of law.

The wilder the responses, the better he would probably like it, judging from the way he uses Eric Raymond on the alleged "series of Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks" (McBride claims there were 4) and distorts Bruce Perens' words in a way he believes is to SCO's advantage. He lectures the community that it's bad to DoS a business, as if we feel otherwise. Many of us are in business ourselves, Mr. McBride. He just can't get over his hippie concept of Linux users and programmers. But then, he declares his desire to work together, as if he were part of the community, or wanted to be. Here's an example:

Finally, it is clear that the Open Source community needs a business model that is sustainable, if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model. Free Open Source software primarily benefits large vendors, which sell hardware and expensive services that support Linux, but not Linux itself. By providing Open Source software without a warranty, these largest vendors avoid significant costs while increasing their services revenue. Today, that's the viable Open Source business model. Other Linux companies have already failed and many more are struggling to survive. Few are consistently profitable. It's time for everyone else in the industry, individuals and small corporations, to under [sic] this and to implement our own business model -- something that keeps us alive and profitable.
Us? Who's the "we" in this picture? SCO and Linux are now "we"? Do you think it's possible he isn't being honest? Could it be the battering-husband-when-he's-acting-nice syndrome again? Whatever he is motivated by, there is no "we" for SCO and Linux. He wishes to tempt us with a hint of money? Who is this guy? No, who does he think we are?

I have a piece of news for you, Mr. McBride. We don't want your business model to keep "alive and profitable", and so we won't work with you or buy your products or sell out. That's your misfortune and your miscalculation.

I will let those named defend themselves, but one segment gives me real pleasure, because it's a big, big hint that SCO still doesn't understand the GPL, and that means they can't possibly have anything truly effective up their sleeves. His lecture on the sanctity of IP includes this astounding bit:

In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder. Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code. Not so -- SCO never gave permission, or granted rights, for this to happen.

Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void.

Of course, no one has claimed their copyright. I won't explain it any more clearly than that, because I want them to slip on a banana peel in court. And now I know they will. I feel a deep sense of happiness on reading his oily words on the GPL. Big hint to SCO: Linux kernel coders have copyright rights on their code, and as you say, there can be no transfer without express written authority of all proper parties.

If you share your views with him, or give him a piece of your mind, I hope you will do so in a way to dignify the community. I expect they intend to keep a list. For all I know they are just trying to get people to step forward for that very purpose, the ultimate troll, so to speak, so think before you write. Better yet, ask your attorney.

Here is one response over on Linux World I noted, because it sounds like he speaks from personal knowledge of some of SCO's history. His personal opinion is that McBride is risking a defamation lawsuit:

D. Jeff Dionne commented on 8 September 2003:

1. What a member of a community does is the responsibility of that individual. The actions of one person cannot be used to stigmatize a group (or any others at all). . . .

2. There is considerable evidence that there was in fact no DOS of SCO's machines. If this proves to be the case, SCO will have to be held accountable for its allegations.

3. SGI is on record that its legal team went through the xfs sources to approve the release. The code in question is clean according to this audit... if it is not then that is a mistake. In any case, it was corrected, and the (appropriate, responsible) procedures followed to insure that intellectual property of others was protected is a matter of public record. Stated another way, it can be clearly shown that the accepted industry process (code audit) was carried out and that it was carried out to respect the rights and property of others.

4. Making allegations of not respecting intellectual property comes (at least) close to defamation. In light of 3, and knowing that SCO was a party (as all enterprise linux vendors were) to the very public work SGI did to contribute xfs to Linux, one has to hold SCO accountable for knowingly making such false and damaging statements.

5. If there is code (for instance) in the SMP support which is SCO's property, that code is limited to the code itself. There is no legal theory that can be presented that will stand scrutiny that will allow you to claim 1m lines of code derived from it. Put another way, _calling_ a function cannot make the work that calls it a derived work in the general case or all programs would be a derived work of the platform they run on.

6. Open Source and Free Software are not business models. They [are a] process and philosophy which is used to generate software for the benefit of everyone. Stated another way, they are designed to make the benefit of the development effort accrue to the public.

7. There is no such thing as "Free Open Source". The terms "Free Software" and "Open Source" are valid terms, however they are not interchangeable.

8. SCO spent many years as a member of the Open Source community. It knows that the community hold property and the law in high regard and respects those laws. SCO also knows that the GPL relies on copyright. SCO knows this because lawyers for another Canopy company examined the foundations of the GPL in depth and also offered GPL indemnity. This is known to Blake Stowell, who was involved in that effort.

9. If the Open Source movement is based on anti-establishment principals, SCO must also be based on them because it was one of the first companies to be an "Open Source" company. It contributed funding and engineering to the development of, and is partly responsible for, the state of the Open Source movement today.

What SCO is doing is illegal. In the case of this letter, you have come very close to defaming myself and other Linux developers. Seek legal advice before posting such things, we will hold you accountable.

Update: Here's the letter in full, for historians, and thanks to Wayback, it's forever ours, because Darl put it on his site darlmcbride.com, with pictures of himself, and it got sucked into the archive:

*******************************

The SCO Group's Open Letter to the Open Source Community

LINDON, Utah, Sep 9, 2003

Darl McBride, CEO of The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX), sent the following letter, dated Sept. 9, 2003, to the Open Source community:

The most controversial issue in the information technology industry today is the ongoing battle over software copyrights and intellectual property. This battle is being fought largely between vendors who create and sell proprietary software, and the Open Source community. My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary UNIX code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system. In doing this, we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.

This debate about Open Source software is healthy and beneficial. It offers long-term benefits to the industry by addressing a new business model in advance of wide-scale adoption by customers. But in the last week of August, two developments occurred that adversely affect the long-term credibility of the Open Source community, with the general public and with customers.

The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DoS) attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago. These were the second and third such attacks in four months and have prevented Web users from accessing our web site and doing business with SCO. There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker -- Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that "he's one of us." To Mr. Raymond's partial credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done.

No one can tolerate DoS attacks and other kinds of attacks in this Information Age economy that relies so heavily on the Internet. Mr. Raymond and the entire Open Source community need to aggressively help the industry police these types of crimes. If they fail to do so it casts a shadow over the entire Open Source movement and raises questions about whether Open Source is ready to take a central role in business computing. We cannot have a situation in which companies fear they may be next to suffer computer attacks if they take a business or legal position that angers the Open Source community. Until these illegal attacks are brought under control, enterprise customers and mainstream society will become increasingly alienated from anyone associated with this type of behavior.

The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr. Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed UNIX System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 26, 2003). Mr. Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code into Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.

This improper contribution of UNIX code by SGI into Linux is one small example that reveals fundamental structural flaws in the Linux development process. In fact, this issue goes to the very heart of whether Open Source can be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software. The intellectual property roots of Linux are obviously flawed at a systemic level under the current model. To date, we claim that more than one million lines of UNIX System V protected code have been contributed to Linux through this model. The flaws inherent in the Linux process must be openly addressed and fixed.

At a minimum, IP sources should be checked to assure that copyright contributors have the authority to transfer copyrights in the code contributed to Open Source. This is just basic due diligence that governs every other part of corporate dealings. Rather than defend the "don't ask, don't tell" Linux intellectual property policy that caused the SCO v. IBM case, the Open Source community should focus on customers' needs. The Open Source community should assure that Open Source software has a solid intellectual property foundation that can give confidence to end users. I respectfully suggest to Open Source developers that this is a far better use of your collective resources and abilities than to defend and justify flawed intellectual property policies that are out of sync with the needs of enterprise computing customers.

I believe that the Open Source software model is at a critical stage of development. The Open Source community has its roots in counter-cultural ideals -- the notion of "Hackers" against Big Business -- but because of recent advances in Linux, the community now has the opportunity to develop software for mainstream American corporations and other global companies. If the Open Source community wants its products to be accepted by enterprise companies, the community itself must follow the rules and procedures that govern mainstream society. This is what global corporations will require. And it is these customers who will determine the ultimate fate of Open Source -- not SCO, not IBM, and not Open Source leaders.

Some enterprise customers have accepted Open Source because IBM has put its name behind it. However, IBM and other Linux vendors are reportedly unwilling to provide intellectual property warranties to their customers. This means that Linux end users must take a hard look at the intellectual property underpinnings of Open Source products and at the GPL (GNU General Public License) licensing model itself.

If the Open Source community wants to develop products for enterprise corporations, it must respect and follow the rule of law. These rules include contracts, copyrights and other intellectual property laws. For several months SCO has been involved in a contentious legal case that we filed against IBM. What are the underlying intellectual property principles that have put SCO in a strong position in this hotly debated legal case? I'd summarize them in this way:

1. "Fair use" applies to educational, public service and related applications and does not justify commercial misappropriation. Books and Internet sites intended and authorized for the purpose of teaching and other non-commercial use cannot be copied for commercial use. We believe that some of the SCO software code that has ended up in the Linux operating system got there through this route. This violates our intellectual property rights.

2. Copyright attributions protect ownership and attribution rights -- they cannot simply be changed or stripped away. This is how copyright owners maintain control of their legal rights and prevent unauthorized transfer of ownership. Our proprietary software code has been copied into Linux by people who simply stripped off SCO's copyright notice or contributed derivative works in violation of our intellectual property rights. This is improper.

3. In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder. Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code. Not so -- SCO never gave permission, or granted rights, for this to happen.

4. Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void.

5. Use of derivative rights in copyrighted material is defined by the scope of a license grant. An authorized derivative work may not be used beyond the scope of a license grant. License grants regarding derivative works vary from license to license -- some are broad and some are narrow. In other words, the license itself defines the scope of permissive use, and licensees agree to be bound by that definition. One reason SCO sued IBM is due to our assertions that IBM has violated the terms of the specific IBM/SCO license agreement through its handling of derivative works. We believe our evidence is compelling on this issue.

The copyright rules that underlie SCO's case are not disputable. They provide a solid foundation for any software development model, including Open Source. Rather than ignore or challenge copyright laws, Open Source developers will advance their cause by respecting the rules of law that built our society into what it is today. This is the primary path towards giving enterprise companies the assurance they need to accept Open Source products at the core of their business infrastructure. Customers need to know that Open Source is legal and stable.

Finally, it is clear that the Open Source community needs a business model that is sustainable if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model. Free Open Source software primarily benefits large vendors, which sell hardware and expensive services that support Linux, but not Linux itself. By providing Open Source software without a warranty, these large vendors avoid significant costs while increasing their services revenue. Today, that's the only viable Open Source business model. Other Linux companies have already failed and many more are struggling to survive. Few are consistently profitable. It's time for everyone else in the industry, individuals and small corporations, to understand this and to implement our own business models -- something that keeps us alive and profitable. In the long term, the financial stability of software vendors and the legality of their software products are more important to enterprise customers than free software. Rather than fight for the right for free software, it's far more valuable to design a new business model that enhances the stability and trustworthiness of the Open Source community in the eyes of enterprise customers.

A sustainable business model for software development can be built only on an intellectual property foundation. I invite the Open Source community to explore these possibilities for your own benefit within an Open Source model. Further, the SCO Group is open to ideas of working with the Open Source community to monetize software technology and its underlying intellectual property for all contributors, not just SCO.

In the meantime, I will continue to protect SCO's intellectual property and contractual rights. The process moving forward will not be easy. It is easier for some in the Open Source community to fire off a "rant" than to sit across a negotiation table. But if the Open Source community is to become a software developer for global corporations, respect for intellectual property is not optional -- it is mandatory. Working together, there are ways we can make sure this happens.

Best regards to all,

Darl McBride CEO The SCO Group


  


McBride Trolls, Hoping You'll Say Something Legally Stupid | 69 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:16 PM EDT
It's interesting to see McBride make such a big deal about "sustainable business models".

He fundamentaly doesn't understand why his company is not doing well. He also should realize that, far from Linux being some communist phenomena, his situation is the result of pure capitalism.

Basically, Linux is commoditizing operating system software. Apache commoditized web servers and it put Netscape out of business. BIND commoditized DNS software and nobody has made money selling DNS software.

Open Letter to McBride: You do not have a right, legally or morally, to make money from your business. You only have the right to try. I'm sorry you, unlike thousands of other companies, are unable to find a way to make money selling software. Perhaps you should try another line of work.


Mark Levitt

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:31 PM EDT
Darl McBride has shot his mouth off so often and so recklessly that a compendium of his statements would both get him and SCO-scum crucified in a court of law. His open letter is an attempt to redress his negative balance.

Darl McBride is probably aware by now that SCO-scum has no future with his licensees. After all, he is accusing a whole batch of SCO-scum's licensees not just IBM of having improperly introduced SCO-scum's IP into Linux: the consensus among the licensees should be by now that SCO-scum is a recklessly unethical and dangerously treacherous business partner, and that a good reference from SCO-scum is the kind of recommendation that is unsolicited, unwanted and an absolutely unnecessary to the core business - especially if you happen to be either the Sun or HP.

I view Darl McBride's open letter to OSS as a belated, insincere attempt at reconciliation with OSS whose purpose is to muddy the waters in the minds of corporate end users as to the nature of our adversarial relationship.

Implicit in his letter is some recognition on his part that SCO-scum has no future without OSS and Linux, but we knew that all along. We will be faithful to the goals of our community, we will be loyal to our alliances and we will quietly watch as SCO-scum drowns and dies in a sea of red ink and as SCO-scum receives blow after blow in the courts.


blacklight

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:53 PM EDT
I personally wonder how many will fall for this red herring they keep throwing out.

"this is part of a much larger debate about IP in the Internet age".

Really, Darl. It's not. You know it, we know it, IBM's attorneys know it and the judge in the RH case will know it. Well, actually, maybe you don't know it. Maybe you believe your own PR. GOOD. It'll be fun to watch when your banana peel finds you.

It IS about a desperate company seeking to steal the work that hundreds of volunteers did over 12 years.

It's petty theft. All your aggrandizing, your misdirections, all of them have been discredited.

You're just a thief.


Sanjeev

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 08 2003 @ 11:59 PM EDT
OT: FFS Austria against SCO
According to http://www.pro-linux.de/news/ 2003/5936.html, the FFS (Organisation for Free Software) Austria (not Germany as in that text - you know, there are already preliminary injunctions against SCO GmbH Germany), is starting legal actions against SCOs "Intellectual Property License".
Gerhard

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:12 AM EDT
What are exactly the requirements to get a class action lawsuit underway against
SCO? They have publicly declared (repeatedly) that they do not accept the GPL
and they have sold thousands of copies of code I have written as part of their
Linux distros. I released the code under GPL own (and actually separate from
Linux). I own the copyright on that code and a copyright notice is printed every
time the kernel starts up. They can't claim they didn't know they do not own any
rights beyond the GPL on that code. There must be hundreds of Linux contributors
in the same position. I don't have the money to fight SCO, but I would be glad
to join a class action.
AG

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:14 AM EDT
Sanjeev and others:

Darl isn't talking to the Linux community. He's not talking to IBM, and he's not talking to Red Hat. He's not even talking to the world in general.

Darl's talking to Congress -- and probably every other parliament in the world. He wants the GPL and open source outlawed.

We won't fall for his red herring, but nembers of Congress will, especially the radical right wing of the Republican Party, which holds the major leadership positions in Congress and which believes that even the government should be turned over to private contractors.

(How do you like the concept of competing private armies, to see which one is the most efficient? Too far fetched? How about a futures market for terrorist threats?)

The rest of us are irrelevant.


Stuart Thayer

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:24 AM EDT
Perhaps I am being perverse but I find it somewhat funny that those who create code are being accused of denying those who want to exploit the monetary value of the code the right to earn a living. Even funnier the fatherly tone to the prodigal Open Source community. Or is it more of a Saruman-like quality in McBride's actions, swinging between admonition and rage, in an attempt to obtain that which he covets?
JonB

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:41 AM EDT
AG
I pulled my UW7.1.1 skunkware cd just to see what it said as to GPL. It mentions
GPL but says I have to check pkg. source, which I don't have and evidently cant
get. All of the pkgs. have sco copyright notices and non other. style="height: 2px; width: 20%; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: auto;">jog

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:45 AM EDT
Finally, it is clear that the Open Source community needs a business model that is sustainable, if it is to grow beyond a part-time avocation into an enterprise-trusted development model.

You mean to say companies providing cheap / almost free products then charging for support is not sustainable ? someone better tell printer manufacturers :)

Free Open Source software primarily benefits large vendors, which sell hardware and expensive services that support Linux, but not Linux itself.

Let me get this right.... "Free Open Source software primarily benefits large vendors but not Linux itself." ?

I thought Open Source software benefited everyone from large corporate users to small home users ?

Companies supporting Linux are in a great position to make the contributions to the kernel that is that not a benefit to Linux? doesn't this benefit trickle down to end users ?


The_Spide

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 12:46 AM EDT
The intended audience of this letter is not the Community, no, Mr. McBride is attemping something much worse than trolling I fear. His tone is one of a school headmaster reprimaning and patiently explaining the errors of a child's ways to the child in front of the child's parents. The words aren't for the child, but for the child's parents. The words aren't intended to help the child but rather frame the relationship with the parents towards the child. Who are the parents? Daryl names them, IP centric corporations and IP based governments (law, legal, society). It's not the Community he is trying to convince, that the free in FOSS must die, it's corporations and governments (probably, particularly the US government). Chillingly familiar...

"...in a survey of IT managers and "business decision makers" last year, "74 percent of Americans ... stated that the risk of being sued over Linux patent violations made them feel less favorable towards Linux.

"This was the only message that had a strong impact with any audience," the memo continued.

Toward the end, the memo stated simply: "The discussion of IP rights needs to be tied to concrete actions." "

--Halloween VII http://www.opensource. org/halloween/halloween7.php


Clifton Hyatt

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:08 AM EDT
Gerhard, please can you translate? Or ask the folks on the site there to post
an English translation? Bitte?
pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:14 AM EDT
AG: Here are the requirements. The last one is the show-stopper: the defendant (SCO) has to be viable enough to entice a lawyer to represent you. Any "class" that is organized will need to convince a copyright lawyer that SCO has the "means to compensate"; if he reviews the background on SCO versus IBM, he will probably come to the conclusion that SCO is dead meat and there won't be anything left on the corpse for him.
Dick Gingras - SCO caro mortuum erit!

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:19 AM EDT
Here's Babelfish to get us started, Gerhard. I can't wait to see what the jumping over itself part actually is:

http://www.pro-linux.de/news/ 2003/5936.html

In a letter to the lawyer the association forbids the sales of licenses for Linux, which deviate from the GNU general Public License for the promotion of free software SCO Germany. This meets in particular the "Intellectual Property License" applied www.caldera.at illegally by SCO Germany on the web page too. In an ultimatum it permits the FFS the enterprise for the last time to turn away for licenses already given, which the GNU does not correspond to general Public License, civilian and criminal pursuit from SCO Germany and the leading employee by the association. The conditions posed cover also the repayment from royalties already raised to the customers and a public clarification, who the sentence: "the requirements of SCO against Linux, spread by SCO Germany, are groundless/unnecessarily" to contain have. If SCO Germany jumps over itself over this prohibition, then, as soon as a sales of the applied license can be proven, a pursuit threatens both from SCO and from leading employees because of injury of copyright. The prohibition is supervised by the association. Members and companies from the surrounding field will accomplish test purchases. "we ask to contact beyond that the association under freedom2innovate@ffs.or.at", so FFS to customers, who received "a Intellectual Property License" or a similar Nachlizenzierung for Linux.


pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:26 AM EDT
<pj>. I can't wait to see what the jumping over itself part actually is:</pj>

disregard, make light of, according to my dictionary


Avery

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:28 AM EDT
"Darl's talking to Congress -- and probably every other parliament in the world. He wants the GPL and open source outlawed."

Darl's entitled to ask for anything he wants in a free country. But open letters are, to be honest, the posh version of posting on web forum. Influencing any government involves behind the scenes lobbying, not public posturing. And the problem is that this isn't just SCO (& MS?) vs. the community: it's vs. IBM, Novell, Japan, China.. it is no longer possible to push Linux under the carpet, *even on narrow economic grounds.*

Yes, he is not addressing the community, but he's not just addressing those with power either. He's talking to *anyone that will listen to him*. We've all seen the increasingly sceptical tone in the press of late - this is an attempt to keep the media onside by playing the wounded hero. Or even, perhaps, a veiled olive branch? (Let's face it, for SCO any settlement now - even a humiliating one - would be better than being torn to shreds by a pack of IBM lawyers in the courts.)

Remember that a lot of people were expecting a new big press release on Monday to boost SCO's stock price? Is this the best SCO can muster - a last, piteous, beg for special treatment in the marketplace? A tired recapitulation of allegations already rendered risible by the weight of evidence? Really, Darl, you *disappoint* me!


Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:28 AM EDT
"jumps over itself over this prohibition" should read "violates this
prohibition".
Thorsten Winterer

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:29 AM EDT
Thanks, Avery, but I was just horsing around. Babelfish makes me smile.

Here's what one mainstream reporter got out of Darl's letter: http://news.com.com/2 100-1016_3-5072884.html?tag=lh


pj

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:33 AM EDT
With regard to Darl's hypothetical talking to Congress: I read somewhere that
the government could file an "amicus brief". What is that? How can that
influence the court proceedings? Does it matter that Utah is Republican? (vs.
IBM's New York being Democrat?)
Thorsten Winterer

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:34 AM EDT
Hi - this might be a bit off-topic, but it gives an indication of the "larger picture" of big corps, big money and lobbyist groups. It's an article from the news section of the scientific journal Nature (NATURE|VOL 424 |28AUGUST 2003 |www.nature.com). Unfortunately, you need to be a subscriber to get into their site, but I found two "mirrors", as it were... html: http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/random-bits/2003-August/001099.html or pdf (nice penguin pic): http://www.cptech. org/ip/wipo/20030828-Nature-WIPO.pdf
-r

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 01:48 AM EDT
Updated Babelfish translation:

In a letter to the lawyer the Association for the Promotion of Free Software (FFS) forbids SCO Germany the sales of licenses for Linux which deviate from the GNU general Public License.

This applies in particular the "Intellectual Property License" that is illegally advertised by SCO Germany on the web page www.caldera.at.

In an ultimatum FFS permits the enterprise for the last time to avert civilian and criminal pursuit from SCO Germany and the leading employee by the association for licenses already issued which do not correspond to the GNU General Public License.

The conditions put cover also the repayment of license fees already raised to the customers and a public clarification which must contain the sentence: "the claims of SCO against Linux, spread by SCO Germany, are groundless".

If SCO Germany violates this prohibition, then, as soon as a sale of the advertised license can be proven, a both SCO and its leading employees are threatened by pursuit because of violation of copyright.

The prohibition is supervised by the association. Members and companies from the association's environment will conduct test purchases. "We additionally ask customers who have obtained a "Intellectual Property License" or a similar secondary/ancillary license for Linux to contact the association at freedom2innovate@ffs.or.at", said the FFS.


Thorsten Winterer

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 02:03 AM EDT
So, I wont get a job as german-to-english interpeter.
I wrote to ffs for more information to send to groklaw.
Gerhard

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 02:18 AM EDT
"Give me what I want and I'll go away." - Andre Linoge, Stephen King's Storm of the Century.

Mr. McBride is finding out the hard way that the Open Source Community is a great deal more determined adn resourceful than the helpless residents of King's fictional town of Little Tall Island, Maine.

My 2 cents at 4 in the AM.


Z

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 02:18 AM EDT
SCO@Austria
www.nic.at says:
domain:caldera.at
descr: [organization]:Caldera GmbH
descr: [street address]:Norsk-Data-Strasse 3
descr: [postal code]:D-61352
descr: [city]:Bad Homburg
descr: [country]:Deutschland

So, while www.cladera.at is just a redirection to www.caldera.com (IP:216.250.128.12), SCO Germany is legaly responsible for the contents. Nice.
Gerhard

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 03:02 AM EDT
An observation about the SGI issue in Darl's latest:

It is virtually certain (from what we know of the code examples shown under NDA, based on what the people prepared to talk have said) that the malloc.c code was one of the examples shown to analysts. That example was then shown at SCOForum, leaked, and shown to be code which, at the very least, could not create a liability for Linux users (code released under BSDish licence, already removed, only used in one rare port, etc.)

The initial response of SCO when this was pointed out was to deny that the example was an example of illegal copying but a demonstration of their datamining techniques. Apparently there were many other examples, which they weren't going to show.

Now a few days later Darl is once again pushing this as illegal copying. SCO contradicting themselves multiple times is nothing new, but the fact that he has to return to this example strengthens the impression that it is the best (non-BSD code) example they have. That impression is reinforced by the fact that some coders had previously identified the SGI snippet as the most likely basis for the copied code allegations.

Now, it may well be the case that the SGI snippet was indeed contributed as a result of the breakdown of procedures at SGI. SGI might have been moved to offer SCO some small amount to show good faith, if not an admission of actual liability. But the reason this hasn't happened already may well be that SGI's proposed settlement would almost certainly contain wording to the effect that this constituted a full settlement of the issues surrounding the snippet - and that would prevent *any* claim against end users by the "double dipping" principle. If the SGI code is indeed SCO's best shot, such a settlement would be disastrous. Thus SCO are forced to wheel out its strange interpretation of derivative works again, to *stop* SGI settling.


Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 03:26 AM EDT
I am very thankful for this site, it's great to get real hard facts... and sorry for this, my present rant.

I read the "Open" letter from McBride, I do not remember who here first quoted the phase "weasel speak" but it applies. SCO has managed to make themselves one of the two most hated companies in the world today. The size of the nards on the SCO execs must be impressive, they are attempting to steal from the open source community, and now, want to make us out to be the unreasonable pirates. The thought that a court of law might actually believe SCO is incredible. I am sure anyone with and knowledge of Unix history will be banned from the jury outright by SCO. SCO does not realise just how many people use/love Linux, and will never forget or forgive. I suppose it is the proper time of year for cowardly backstabbing attacks by suicidial idiots. SCO/Canopy does not comprehend the probems they have opened themselves up to. If SCO does steal the Linux kernel, no one will use it (or any other SCO/Canopy product or service). I do not beleive there has ever been a larger worldwide boycott than is in the proccess of being dumped all over the whole Canopy Group. SCO can crow all it wants, soon it will eat that same crow.

SCO read my lips ........


nm

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 03:27 AM EDT
Continuing a post on a previous topic, since it fits with the theme of Darl's attempt to sound conciliatory:

"...a (recorded) verbal commitment from McBride to allow the Linux Kernel Developers access to the source code without that draconian NDA."

Without *that* NDA, but with a different one? One cannot help but be suspicious of what terms are to be offered, if any. (I don't think you can enforce a verbal commitment if it isn't part of a contract.)

Let's remember that a SCO spokesman said that their idea of "cleaning" the kernel started - just started, mind you - with removing *all* the code IBM contributed.

So an un-NDAed meeting might go like this:

"Hello all, here is the 2.4.x kernel code, and here is IBM's JFS for AIX. AIX is a SysV derivative and so we own control rights over its code. You can see that there are substantial similarities between the AIX JFS code and yours. Please, therefore, remove JFS from the kernel.." and so on in a similar vein.

(Of course I don't agree with the implied reasoning in that imagined statement!)

The kernel developers obviously refuse to comply with SCO's request: then SCO issues a press release about their "blatant contempt for our IP rights."


Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 03:53 AM EDT
Thorsten Winterer: An "amicus brief" as your put is actually called an Amicus Curiea brief, or litertallu "Friend of the Court Brief". It is brief that can be filed with a court by individuals or groups that have a stake in the outcome of the court case, and are not a party involved with the case.

An amicus brief can bring issues or matters which have not turned up during the case. For example during the DeCSS I.e. DVD) case vs ERIC CORLEY, a/k/a "EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN" AND 2600 ENTERPRISES, the OpenLaw goups files an amicus brief about the injunction the cour issued. The brief brought up points about about the nature of hyperlinks on the Web and that links are expressions of speech, first amendment issues, the fact there were no evidense of contributry violation of the DMCA, the DeCSS program falls under the reverse engineering exception of te DMCA, etc.

Each court and Federal Circuit has they own rules as to how many briefs an be submitted, when they can be submitted, the format and how long they can be, etc. A court may or may not consider any issues brough up in amicus briefs when they make their finders and conclusions.

I'm sure that pj will correct me or add anything that I've left out.


Stephen Johnson

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 04:19 AM EDT
John, thanks for the long response. I was going to make a response myself but instead after I have a little time I'm going to add a few points to yours.

Also, radio (Groklaw's host) is not good for long comments. Please everyone if you have a lot to say, put it somewhere else and put a (short) link here. It won't be long now until new comments are not taken in this comment field.


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 04:28 AM EDT
Stephen, thanks for the clarification. I was almost expecting something more sinister.

Heise (the publisher, not the lawyer) has an article on McBride's letter and the Austrian FFS case on their web site (in German): http://www.heise.de/ newsticker/data/jk-09.09.03-001/

They also link to an open letter from SuSE's CEO, Richard Seibt, which can be found here (also in German): http://www.suse.de/de/company/press/press_releases/archive03/sco_seibt.html

He writes that SuSE will support Red Hat's lawsuit as much they can.


Thorsten Winterer

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 04:37 AM EDT
I bow to your eloquence, Mr. Gabriel.
Steve Martin

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 04:47 AM EDT
Good work John, though maybe the use of the f-word could be removed if you plan to submit this to any other forums?

btw, Note the Darlism in "To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code..."

Not SysV code per se, but a mysterious entity called "System V protected" code. (Obviously, not only does the AT&T contract affect all code IBM ever writes, but this contract is magically binding on everyone in the entire world. ;)

The more often SCO uses phrases without legal meaning, the more I am reminded of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.."


Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:03 AM EDT
How about submitting John's response to the Linux website McBride's sanctimonious rant was on?

If Groklaw is a democratic community, I vote that his response be heard as a rebuttal.


Z

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:09 AM EDT
Z. I already posted it in the user forum there. If they wish to give it a wider airing, my permission to do so is already granted in the introductory part of the letter.

And, of course, anyone here is welcome to post, quote, or redistribute it as well, just make sure I'm properly credited and that my e-mail is kept in it.


John Gabriel

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:11 AM EDT
John, good post, but I have to take issue with one aspect.

First of all, we have absolutely no information that a DDoS attack took place on SCO. Yeah, someone emailed ESR about it, but crazies give themselves up to murder cases all the time. Creating the myth of DDoS plays directly into SCO's greasy little paws by stating that we're all alike.

I don't have a timeline sorted out, but I think that the times when the site was actually down appear to match up with when they were 'asked' to change the wording of some of the site content by the Germans, and this does match up with what people were being told when they called SCO. Remember that SCO will use _any_ FUD they can get their hands on, so if they're claiming attack, the FBI should get involved or should be involved.

Anyone want to call them on SCO's behalf?

The other thing I just wanted to mention was that someone has put up a timeline on Slashdot for the licensing claims;

http://yro.slas hdot.org/comments.pl?sid=77714&cid=6905429

I'm still pretty stuck on this idea that SCO will hang themselves with their actions rather than the actual suits because of their exposure at the moment. Although the usual parties are staying out of the wider scrap, it's going to be handy to catalogue the various times they've contradicted themselves, simply because it makes them out to be complete idiots. Okay, idiots with a paper trail.


James

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:14 AM EDT
And I would be honored if the Groklaw community did wish to have it more widely
published as a representative response of the community, but I suspect that some
members might have legitimate and understandable problems with some of my
language, the obscenities in particular.
John Gabriel

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:16 AM EDT
Yeah...what John said! SCO Fan Fiction! http://timransomsfeeblemind.blog spot.com Thanks again
Tim Ransom

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:39 AM EDT
It doesn't look like DDoS from our scrutiny over the weeks. Even this past weekend, the SCO site seemed unavailable for large periods according to the Netcraft logs. Thread of gathered information and original story on why the site was down.
JonB

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 05:57 AM EDT
James and JonB, please read my response to pargraph 3 again. I agreed with your point and pointed out that ESR's story is not widely accepted within the community. I also pointed out that in phone calls SCO repeatedly denied any attacks and instead confirmed that they were down for maintenance.

It's actually kind of ironic that you would think I missed that point, since, as far as I know, I was the first to run, analyze, and report on traceroutes to SCO's websites showing that they were unlikely to be under a DoS attack. PJ used the report in one her articles, and she also used my account of calling SCO to confirm that they were down for maintenance in another article.

I mean, that's not something I would miss. The reports where you first read about it were probably based on something I wrote.


John Gabriel

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 06:09 AM EDT
I don't see where anyone has brought this up yet in the comments (pj did in the article). The crux of SCO's attempt to invalidate the GPL is that you can't assign copyright without a signed statement from both parties. Hence, since parties don't sign the GPL, it is moot and copyright law takes precedent (where it says you can only make one backup copy of software). If you read the US copyright code, you will see that this is true - you need a signed written instrument to assign copyright.

However, what you do not need a signed document for is to assign people the right to make additional copies. You still maintain your copyright, but have allowed a specific set of circumstances to govern what copying can be done. When people release some software under the GPL (or any software license) they aren't reassigning the copyright, but providing you with a right to copy. (In MS' case - very restricitive, in the GPL's case, as many times as you want). SCO is confusing the issue, either deliberately or they have bad lawyers.

Last point: Stuart Thayer and Clifton Hyatt have it right. This "open letter to the community" isn't really for the community at all. It is an open letter to the business, legal and political communities, trying to paint Linux and its development model as bad for business and dangerous/disrespectful of intellectual property rights.


RavingLuni

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 06:12 AM EDT
John, I was not disputing the claim. If you like, it is independent confirmation since we conducted our own collection of information. It was just information for James, or others who may have missed the original analysis on the claims of an attack. ;)
JonB

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 06:16 AM EDT
Note to Darl:

You are really playing up the 80 lines supposedly taken from SGI while you know that those lines are the same as code Linux has a legal right to include. You are the one with all of the examples, why fight over this one when you can release a less disputable example?

Your refusal to provide an example of code that does not appear in the older released versions of Linux can only tell an honest observer that you don't have any better examples. If you have better examples, it does not serve you at all to keep them hidden.

Since you can't bill Linux users for IBM's breach of contract even in the negligible chance that you can prove IBM breached its contract, (continuously for at least three years while Caldera itself was one of the biggest Linux developers) you claim to be charging $699 per server for BSD code that you don't own and ancient Unix that your company specifically released to the open source community.

If this is the best example you can come up with, (and it is) you deserve the public ridicule that prompted you to write this letter. But now you will only get more well-deserved ridicule.

You are really being put to into the public like a circus freak or a buffoon. It's as if you are being paid to entertain us. You have not sued anyone for copyright violations over the last six months of threats. Now your threats inspire more mockery than fear.

So let me let you in on the joke. You don't have evidence. We know it. If you had it you would have shown it. We are laughing at you, not with you. Your lawyers are giving you good advice to delay the court proceedings as much as possible. Hopefully IBM will run out of money to prosecute the case and you'll be let off the hook.

If your lawyers are telling you to come in public to put on the crazy-Darl show, they are giving you very bad advice. I'm enjoying laughing at you but its not helping you or SCO at all.

Stop or don't stop. I don't care either way, in fact I'd rather continue to be amused. But it wouldn't be right of me to leave you as the only one who doesn't know that Darl *is* the joke here.


r.a.

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 06:19 AM EDT
James, the "DoS attack" and the downtime of the German web site do not match. The German SCO web site was clean as of the 26th of June, probably earlier. (don't know exact date) See http://www.tarent.de/servlet/is/580 9/

Interestingly, I can't reach www.sco.de at the moment, although www.caldera.de (which is basically the same site) works fine.


Thorsten Winterer

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 06:35 AM EDT
John Gabriel I wish I could write as well as you. It is well argued, puts it all together in one place, and between the lines the contempt for SCO just oozes to create a delightful read.

A small point re para 17, some have stated that the Microsoft license is not perpetual and Microsoft have the option of adding more money if SCO's efforts are doing Linux and not Microsoft damage. At this stage you would have to say SCO are not likely to see another slab.


Charles Esson

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 06:56 AM EDT
I posted the following in the message area for a previous message this morning, before this article was posted. The comments belong here: "Here is some of what Mr. Darl McBride had to say in his Open Letter to the open Source Community: http://linuxworld.com/story/34007.h tm "The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn’t be there. Mr Perens stated that there is “an error in the Linux developer’s process” which allowed Unix System V code that “didn’t belong in Linux” to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003). "

Okay, first of all this arrticle appears on 26 August 2003, not 25 August. I couldn't access the Computerwire article as I don't have an account. But this doesn't seem to be what Perens has said in other articles. Here is what I heard Perens say: "http://www.nwfusion .com/news/2003/0722linuxadvoc.html :

"They're selling a pig in a poke," said open source advocate Bruce Perens. "I think they've made an error through overconfidence, and that error has made them liable to be sued by every person who has code in the kernel, and every company," he said.

He was referring to SCO. Pass the bong, Darl, I need a hit.

Darl's other attack on the OS community:

"The first development followed another series of Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on SCO, which took place two weeks ago. These were the second and third such attacks in four months and have prevented Web users from accessing our web site and doing business with SCO. There is no question about the affiliation of the attacker – Open Source leader Eric Raymond was quoted as saying that he was contacted by the perpetrator and that “he’s one of us.” To Mr Raymond’s partial credit, he asked the attacker to stop. However, he has yet to disclose the identity of the perpetrator so that justice can be done. "

I predicted that the identity of this person who had contacted Raymond would never be released, because this was an attempt by the Gates-Ballmer and Co. dirty tricks dept., or SCO's own dirty tricks people, to set Raymonds up for a black eye. Can anyone tell me what the final result of the reseach into the alleged "DDOS attack" on SCO was- did it ever really occur?

If darl was a child, he would be in severe need of a good spanking. As it stands, he needs a good swift kick in the pants."

Only one thing more I can add- why do I keep having the feeling that the opposition has dossiers on key people working in Open Source, so that they might pick the ones that would be vulnerable to certain dirty tricks? Raymond is a case in point.


wild bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:03 AM EDT
Stuart Thayer wrote: "(How do you like the concept of competing private armies, to see which one is the most efficient? Too far fetched? How about a futures market for terrorist threats?)

The rest of us are irrelevant. "

How about all of us becoming relevant, and contacting every congress critter that we can on this matter?


wild bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:07 AM EDT
Okay stating that Republicans will kill the GPL is almost as bad as saying the GPL is illegal. I can say this because I'm a Republican and I fully support the GPL. So do many other republicans I know as well. The point that should be made is that it really doesn't matter what party runs the house and senate. The senate was largly under the Democrats control when the DCMA was passed. Many Republicans were against it. What I'm trying to say is there is no way, nor is it proper, to state what one particular political party will or will not do under the circumstances. First off the US Government actually has a vested interest in keeping the GPL afloat. NASA, the FBI, US Military, and NSA all run Linux based systems and the NSA even has a version of Linux you can download. BTW that's just a few of the government angencies that utilize Linux. Our federal government sees Linux correctly and I'm willing to bet the FTC the USPS and maybe a couple of other angencies are waiting for SCO to slip up considerably so that they can put them under official investigation. Besides the GPL is a copyright issue and that makes it up to the courts to decide it's legallity not congress and from the many comments made by those who have studied the GPL I don't think SCO has a snowball's chance in hell of getting it declared illegal.
Shaun

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:18 AM EDT
John Gabriel,

Great response, but...I'm not sure, but I believe you meant "Cisco", and not "Compaq" in regards to the lights going out & print servers. I can't find the link at the moment, but I do recall the article - I know it was about them growing to fast to get new hardware up & Lynux boxes were used in the pinch. Might want to double check that part. Compaq makes their own servers, I would be surprised if they ever considerd using Oricle print servers, or for that matter any server from anyone else when that is, after all, part of their core business.

Also, no one ever "transferd" copyrights in any open source project. The original coders maintain their copyrights. This is one area that we all should be carefull about so as not to add to the misinformed about what the GPL actually does, and does not do. SCO seems bent on convincing everyone that the copyrights have actually been transferd (not sure who they would be transferd to, but then the whole SCO argument is rather hard to make sense of...) From those I know who code, the fact that they still maintain the copyright is much of what they appreciate about open source...

Thomas


Thomas LePage

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:21 AM EDT
Just a thought- since the Computerwire article Daryl refers to cannot be
accessed publicly, does anyone have a contact at Computerwire or an account-
they might send an e-mail and ask Computerwire to repost the article in the
"Breaking News" area of their website, which is free to the public. That way we
can all read the article.....
wild bill

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:21 AM EDT
Charles, I may be wrong about the MS's license from SCO being perpetual, but if memory serves me correctly, they did state that in their April 30th 10-Q.

PJ, can you verify?


John Gabriel

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:25 AM EDT
Thomas, I think you're right. It probably was Cisco. Oh well.

Thanks for the correction.

Also, I hope nothing in my response implied agreement with SCO's position on "transfers". As far as I know, I didn't even address copyright transfers as it was relevant to my arguments with SCO.


John Gabriel

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:27 AM EDT
Thomas, on second reading, I think I get what you are saying. I believe I was
pretty clear on the necessity for anyone contributing code under the GPL to
include and maintain their copyrights.
John Gabriel

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:39 AM EDT
Also, no one ever "transferd" copyrights in any open source project. The original coders maintain their copyrights. This is one area that we all should be carefull about so as not to add to the misinformed about what the GPL actually does, and does not do. SCO seems bent on convincing everyone that the copyrights have actually been transferd (not sure who they would be transferd to, but then the whole SCO argument is rather hard to make sense of...) From those I know who code, the fact that they still maintain the copyright is much of what they appreciate about open source...

Thomas Thomas LePage • 9/9/03; 7:18:30 AM

I think they are confused between "granting the right to copy" and "transfering the copywrite"


The_Spide

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:39 AM EDT
Classic misdirection and comment type PR crap. Define the issue as this limited thing and then comment on that as if its fact.

John,

Add to the list of why the open community is angry with SCO is the fact that they are charging for licenses via SCOsource. If they had not done this and kept to just a contract fight with IBM, I doubt that the anger level and certainly the fear level would be so high.

SCO is charging and threatening companies for something they do not own.

I work for a company that makes money via usage of Linux. Our company is certainly not alone. SCO's actions are and can further hurt our ability to make money from our software. How is this being behind the poor, beleaguered software developer? Does SCO's actions help Oracle, HP, IBM, BayTech, Cyclades, SecureEdge, just to name a few?

Since so much has and will be said about the specifics of this letter, I thought I'd write a few comments about the general concept behind this thinking expressed by McBride and others.

1. Linux / Open Source/ GPL is about "decreasing the value" of software.

No question about it. Open source software decreases the value of software. This is true. I can now get free office software that before I can only get for hundreds of dollars. The same is true even for software that use to cost $50 - $60K. BUT software NEEDED to be devalued. Software now costs MORE than the hardware it runs on. In addition this is actually part of the natural commoditation of a product. The OS and basic applications are now more common and business now must make money by ADDING value to them. Sorry every one but the days of the 5 and 6 figure software package are over and have been for years. Its a business model that can be kept going for a little while longer, but your company better be comming up with something else soon or its dead.

2. The evil, communist, socialist geeks behind GPL/ linux want all software to be free.

Well ok there are some people who want all software to be free. But that doesn't mean there isn't money to be made via Linux / GPL. In addition there is some protection via copyrights. Also people working for free from scratch will take some time to make a package. Take for example OrCAD or Autocad. These are expensive software packages for making board designs. There is a free cad package (EagleCad), but we don't use it. Why? Many reasons, but mostly becuase we think that Autocad is a better value / more features than Eagle.

3. Linux and open source = lost SW jobs

The plan truth behind lost software jobs is because 1. the third world is catching up to the US and others in terms of technical knowledge. 2. A few companies (such as MS) are controlling most of the software. If there truely was a lot of Office packages and OS's to choose from there would be more software jobs.

I could go on and on here, but the bottom line is that Linux is here, it is here to stay, and it is not the cause of all evils. Business MUST learn to USE Linux to make money rather than whine about it.

Adapt or go the way of the dino.


BubbaCode

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 07:51 AM EDT
PJ wrote: ". . . it's a big, big hint that SCO still doesn't understand the GPL, and that means they can't possibly have anything truly effective up their sleeves. His lecture on the sanctity of IP includes this astounding bit:

"In copyright law, ownership cannot be transferred without express, written authority of a copyright holder. Some have claimed that, because SCO software code was present in software distributed under the GPL, SCO has forfeited its rights to this code. Not so -- SCO never gave permission, or granted rights, for this to happen.

"Transfer of copyright ownership without express written authority of all proper parties is null and void."

I suspect it wouldn't matter if the fallacy were spelled out for them; they see the light, but they don't comprehend it, because their case depends on it. Mark Heise's remarks last month about the GPL also assume there is a transfer of ownership. Ah, well. As Napoleon said, "Don't disturb your enemy while he is busy making a mistake."


paulb

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:01 AM EDT
BubbaCode said: 'Linux / Open Source/ GPL is about "decreasing the value" of software'

I respectfully disagree. Open Source is about decreasing the cost of software. The value of Open Source software often is higher for an end user, because he has the right to modify the software.
When a cheaper product has good enough quality, it replaces the more expensive product.


MathFox

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:03 AM EDT
bling! THAT'S the "prempted" arguement!!! "We didn't write any authority to transfer our rights. Copyright law says rights are only transfered with written authority. GPL says differently, but copyright law pre-emps GPL."

Bet you all my money that's the flawed thinking.


BubbaCode

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:06 AM EDT
I'm sorry MathFox. I thought I was being clear. The stuff by the numbers is
what SCO and others say. I basically agree with you Open source increases the
value of software
BubbaCode

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:11 AM EDT
About the addressees for Darls new FUD contribution:
Look at http://ir.sco.com/ - make sure to be on "Investor Relations Home" - et voila, "Press Releases" 09/09/03!
Gerhard

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:13 AM EDT
Press compares what Perens said to what McBride's quote

http://silicon valley.internet.com/news/article.php/3074441


quatermass - SCO delenda est

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:14 AM EDT
Here's a thought re the announced licences: The licences are, according to SCO, for kernel versions 2.4 and 2.5. But 2.6-pre is already with us, and SCO cannot have been unaware that it would have been by the time the licences were ready for sale. There cannot be anything in 2.6 they feel they cannot allow to be run, since it's all in the later 2.5.x kernels. So, why does the licence not cover 2.6?

The initial reactions of SCO after the SCOForum slides were leaked rather indicates they didn't expect them to be leaked. I'm sure that in their original game plan the "examples of copying" should still have been tightly NDA'ed at this date. So, the licencing plan was drawn up at a time when these examples were not expected to receive expert scrutiny.

Could the fact that the SGI snippet was in some 2.4 and some 2.5 versions, but is not present in 2.6, be related? Was it (originally) the plan to use this single file, if necessary, to go after an Itanium end user and get them to settle, for a PR victory?


Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:15 AM EDT
God I wish I could write an open letter and then have my stock go up 5.75% in early trading.

What the heck drives this stock anyway? Gama-rays?


BubbaCode

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:17 AM EDT
Quatermass, good to see the IT press actually pointing out McBride's misleading
quoting.
Dr Stupid

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:21 AM EDT
can't we start suing them yet? surely kernel developers can sue sco for defamation, liable and other things? and i know the courts move slow, but if hundreds of people's reputations are being unjustly destroyed then surely the courts have an obligation to act quickly. can't they just force sco to publish the 1,000,000 lines they claim infringes so that they can either disprove the claim or work to fix their code so that it will stop infringing. surely a copyright holder is not allowed to force a person/company abusing their copyright to continue abusing it.
kevin lyda

[ Reply to This | # ]

radiocomment
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 09 2003 @ 08:21 AM EDT
Mr McBride:

The bulk of the code that SCO put in dispute is code developed by IBM and other companies and contributed to Linux. You *claim* this code falls under the definition of "derivative code" and SCO has some kind of "control rights" over it. You still have to prove this in a court of law. Till that happens, SCO doesn't have any rights over any of the code that you claim is "derivative code" and it is not SCO's "intellectual property".

If you think there is any other code in Linux that is clearly SCO's, disclose what it is, or sue a Linux distributor for violating your copyright. Quit wasting everyone's time with gimmicks.


RC

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )