Linked by Eugenia Loli on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:22 UTC, submitted by Thorbjörn Jemander
SCO, Caldera, Unixware Subpoenas are flying in the high-profile lawsuit between the SCO Group and IBM, as both companies try to buttress their legal claims by turning to third parties for information. SCO said Wednesday that it has filed subpoenas targeting six different individuals or organizations. Those include Novell; Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux kernel; Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation; Stuart Cohen, chief executive of the OSDL; and John Horsley, general counsel of Transmeta.
Order by: Score:
out of control
by snorkel on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:28 UTC

They are getting way out of control....
Targeting individuals now.
I really wish IBM would just buy them out, it would probably be less expensive than the legal fees for the next 5 years :-(
The only people getting anything out of all this is the attornies.

Re: out of control
by ThanatosNL on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:31 UTC

Subpoenas are a summon to court. Are they being sued, or just brought to trial to testify? I would think their testimony would be valid and pertinent, regardless of whose "side" you're on.

If SCO wanted to sue them for ip infringement, I'm sure they'd have no compunction about doing so.

...
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:31 UTC

They better be careful or else RMS will turn into the incredible hulk. I wouldn't want to be the SCO!

I'm suprised ...
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:36 UTC

I'm suprised they left Santa Claus off the list. Seems he is just as relavent to SCO's case against IBM.

Re: out of control
by KottonmouthKing on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:37 UTC

Seems kind of early for this flurry of activity. I was under the impression that this thing is not even going to make it to court until 2005. Or is it right on schedule?

RE: out of control
by Peter on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:43 UTC

> The only people getting anything out of all this is the attornies.

Yep, and the SCO management.

It's actually quite sad to see how SCO/Caldera, once an interesting player in the IT-business, is milked and probably killed at the end by management, lawyers and investment firms.
Wonder what company is next when McBride is done with SCO. Or maybe he got enough cash out of this so he can retire.

Well, just ranting...

Re: out of control
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 05:47 UTC

I think IBM want to bring this trial to a rapid conclusion by getting SCO's case dismissed completely, hence all the activity. As I understand, IBM is forcing SCO to fight back here which is a bit earlier than SCO had hoped.

This is normal
by Mark Wilson on Thu 13th Nov 2003 06:06 UTC

It's just the discovery phase of the litigation. There is nothing here about the merits (or lack thereof) of the case. If there are disputes in this phase, the judge will decide them, and then the parties will continue to fight over substantive issues.

Regards,

Mark Wilson

Do people belive SCO
by {}{}{} on Thu 13th Nov 2003 06:36 UTC

Their stock has been going up ever since they sued IBM

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=1y

52week range:

LOW: $0.78
HIGH: $22.29

RE: Do people belive SCO
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 07:00 UTC

Just like the .Com bubble but we all know what happened there right ?

v Linuxs bubble will burst
by Stardust on Thu 13th Nov 2003 07:57 UTC
Don't buy SCO!
by acobar on Thu 13th Nov 2003 08:06 UTC

This is exactly what SCO managers and lawyers wish!

Theory
by Rudo on Thu 13th Nov 2003 08:15 UTC

A theory I've read on www.groklaw.net and agree with is that McBride read the newest Forbes article which is about IBM's subpoenas and went all "Ooh, we must have subpoeans, too! And with Stallman we can prove that Free Software is all about hippies and communists! We can turn the 'GPL is invalid and unsconstitutional'-spin some more!"
I for one think that this is their worst mistake. RMS can easily point of all of their flaws in their view of the GPL. And Novell can come clean with what copyrights SCO actually owns in Unix.
Plus, maybe we'll get some more nice comments from Linux ā la "They're smocking crack." ;)

v IP Property
by Sarah M. on Thu 13th Nov 2003 08:24 UTC
v ....
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 08:51 UTC
...
by Anonymous on Thu 13th Nov 2003 09:11 UTC

It's going to be on national television and IBM will have RMS and the boys decked out in the finest Star Trek uniforms on the planet.

RMS subpoened?
by ZoontF on Thu 13th Nov 2003 11:07 UTC

Krikey! I wouldn't put RMS up on the stand for or against me. He serves a higher cause that most people just can't comprehend - and then gets incredibly peeved when people can't comprehend it. Just what I would want - a peeved RMS on the stand. I don't know if he can really Hulk out, but his words can stop one's heart cold.

I can just see the lawyers attempting to procede and confusing the terms Free and Open-Source software. Suddenly RMS objects and launches into a lengthy tangent tantrum about the difference while the lawyers and judge stand there dumbfounded.

What a crock - can't SCO see that they are almost universally disliked if not hated?

.:.
by HAL on Thu 13th Nov 2003 11:12 UTC

Watching this drama from europe is very amusing. Keep it going! This is quality entertainment.

hmmmm....
by bagdadbob on Thu 13th Nov 2003 11:17 UTC

IBM just serve a bunch of subpoenas to the contributors of SCO's FUD machine (http://www.forbes.com/technology/enterprisetech/2003/11/11/cz_dl_11...) - companies that have either invested in SCO or published reports suggesting that SCO's claims against IBM could be legitimate.

"I view this as an attempt to bully and intimidate analysts--to try to cow them into silence," says Christopher Sontag, executive vice president at SCO, in Lindon, Utah.

With that said, SCO turns around fires off its own subpoenas because... well they don't know.

I guess IBM hurt their feeling (and stock price) and so they felt they must do the same to IBM et al. It would appear that they are just trying to damage the reputations of various people and organizations.

HAL
by dpi on Thu 13th Nov 2003 12:46 UTC

"Watching this drama from europe is very amusing. Keep it going! This is quality entertainment."

Yeah, i can imagine it is very entertaining from Germany ;)

Re:
by sundby on Thu 13th Nov 2003 12:46 UTC

I wish I lived in America too!
...

v Way to go!
by nolinux on Thu 13th Nov 2003 13:07 UTC
Ridiculous
by Steven on Thu 13th Nov 2003 13:26 UTC

When all this mess started, I was angry at SCO. Now, they make me laugh. The main victim here is IBM, a giant being ridiculed by a bunch of crooks. What a waste of time for Big Blue !

An act of desperation...
by Archie Steel on Thu 13th Nov 2003 13:48 UTC

SCO knows its final days are coming, it's been trying to avoid revealing the alleged stolen code, even though we're now in discovery phase and they're supposed to show what they've got. If they had a case, they wouldn't try to delay or avoid discovery. Already the judge is getting impatient with SCO's pussyfooting - she's already set the dates for the oral arguments, instead of allowing SCO more time.

SCO's dead meat. All those who think they may still have a chance should read about the facts of the case instead of following SCO press releases and reading nothing but zdnet...

(P.S. The Yankee Group was subpoenaded by IBM - which means the lovely Laura Didio will probably have to go on the stand and explain to everyone why she said that SCO has a credible case - and therefore ruin her own credibility in the process. Ooh I wish this happens before Christmas!)

Opportunity
by Getulio Brasil on Thu 13th Nov 2003 14:17 UTC

I think all this should be treated seriously as a great opportunity for the OSS community to prove GPL. This would be a breakthrough. But if it goes on thinking that the failure of SCO is the only thing it can get, we will miss the train.

reasons for subpoenas
by mntnpngn on Thu 13th Nov 2003 15:36 UTC

The Reason behind why IBM issued subpoenas to investment firms are pretty obvious and in fact it's quite a brilliant move. One possibilties is SCO has told investment firms something that's not public which is illegal since public company must disclose such information for everyone and not just select few. Second possibility is that these investment firms have some ties to Microsoft in which case it would be very damaging to both Microsoft and SCO. I would be surprised if IBM had some proof of either one of these possibilities and want to expose them in the courtroom. And of course these two possibilites aren't mutually exclusive.

The Reason behind why SCO issued six subpoenas including Linus and RMS isn't very clear at all. First I'm not sure if the subpoenas is to appear in court during the discovery phase or to testify during jury trial. The case is still in discovery phase so I can only assume the former. I just don't see how bringing them into court room can be advantage to SCO since the case is between SCO and IBM regarding contract violation and either one of them work for IBM. What is there to discover from by having them in court? What is John Horsley of Transmeta have to do with this case? I just think SCO is merely trying to delay the discovery of evidence or just muddie the waters. Perhaps it's an attempt to confuse the issue and make headlines in the press.

this ain't good
by Mike on Thu 13th Nov 2003 15:56 UTC

Getting Stallman involved in this would be the kiss of death. All Stallman has to do is show up wearing one of his dumbass stupid ties and his unclean face and his long hair and the bias in the court will already be in SCO's favor.

At least Torvalds *looks* respectable.

re: way to go
by Mike on Thu 13th Nov 2003 15:57 UTC

"It's time to put Torvalds behind bars for the rest of his life for the crimes he has committed against software community. "

What are you smoking?

@Mike
by Great Cthulhu on Thu 13th Nov 2003 16:18 UTC

I'm sure he'll put on a suit and tie for his court appearance. He's not stupid, and the GPL is his baby - he'll try to do anything he can to hurt SCO's case, and for that he'll probably be counseled by the more-than-capable Eben Moglen.

In any case, a jury shouldn't base a witness' claims on how he or she looks.

Re: Out of Control
by Jason on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:06 UTC

"I really wish IBM would just buy them out, it would probably be less expensive than the legal fees for the next 5 years :-( "

NO!!! Personally, I think the case has no merit and might get thrown out quicker than people realize....

but...even if it doesn't, I don't want SCO execs or anyone affiliated with SCO to make money. Plus, if they go through with this and they are found to be doing illegal activity, it would be nice to see the lawyers/execs do some jail time/pay some fines.

Having said that, I think the jail time/fine scenario is highly unlikely. Stupid people with money can get away with quite a bit.

@HAL
by nego` on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:32 UTC

Dude I live in america and I find it very amusing. Almost as amusing as those "I put hot coffee between my legs and now I got burned" lawsuits ;)

IBM is the one out of control
by Top Speed on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:32 UTC

They are getting way out of control....

Actually IBM is the one that keeps raising the stakes, they first launched a patent assualt (supposedly contrary to the open source religion) and were the first to file subpoenas as well. Add to that the fact they probably made illegal contributions from Unix in the first place and there's your bad guy. They didn't face 30 years of anti-trust trials for nothing!

RMS
by Top Speed on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:34 UTC

They better be careful or else RMS will turn into the incredible hulk...

Not likely, what is more probable is that Stallman goes into some tirade about how it should be illegal to charge money for software in the first place, and accuse the judge of a sham trial.

Rudo
by Top Speed on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:37 UTC

A theory I've read on www.groklaw.net and agree with is that McBride read the newest Forbes article which is about IBM's subpoenas and went all "Ooh, we must have subpoeans, too! And with Stallman we can prove that Free Software is all about hippies and communists! We can turn the 'GPL is invalid and unsconstitutional'..."

Which is an unusually accurate theory for Groklaw to have come up with. Exactly what they're going to do, and since the stage is US Federal Court there's a good chance it will go down exactly as planned.



I for one think that this is their worst mistake. RMS can easily point of all of their flaws in their view of the GPL. And Novell can come clean with what copyrights SCO actually owns in Unix.
Plus, maybe we'll get some more nice comments from Linux ā la "They're smocking crack." ;)

Rudo 2
by Top Speed on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:40 UTC

I for one think that this is their worst mistake. RMS can easily point of all of their flaws in their view of the GPL. And Novell can come clean with what copyrights SCO actually owns in Unix. Plus, maybe we'll get some more nice comments from Linux ā la "They're smocking crack."

RMS is no lawyer and he won't be doing anything other than defending the 'copyleft' theory to a bunch of lawyers and judges in Utah. I doubt it goes well for him. As for Torvalds, his 'crack' comment only hurts his credibility, as does his comments about hiring hit men if stolen code is found.

v Sham Artist
by Top Speed on Thu 13th Nov 2003 17:48 UTC
RE: Rudo 2
by Rudo on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:03 UTC

I guess humor in my replies is too confusing...

RMS: True, he is no lawyer, but I think he's capable enough to know what he's doing and what he achieved with the GPL. I think he can easily dispell the misconceptions of the GPL that SCP has. And then there's always Moglen. I'm sure he'll consult him before he goes into court - if he does and doesn't challange the subpoena first.

Torvalds: That was actually a joke on my part. You know, if SCO can get away with lies they sell as truth, why can't Linux get away with humor he sells as humor?

U.S. Legal Procedure (Here's What's Happenin')
by Jud on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:12 UTC

As your friendly resident U.S. lawyer, I'm here to tell you a bit about U.S. legal procedure and what is going on in this case.

1. What - The subpoenas will be to take sworn testimony of Linus and RMS, but it will be done out of court at what is called a "deposition" - most likely in the offices of SCO's or IBM's lawyers, or those of local law firms that are assisting them. In this discovery phase, SCO will be allowed to seek either evidence admissible at trial, or facts that might reasonably lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial. That's the legal standard.

2. Why - The practical reason for asking them to give depositions at this point is so SCO finds out (a) if there are any vulnerabilities in what Linus or RMS has to say, and (b) if they have evidence that would be damaging to SCO. If it's (b), then SCO can work on trying to find counter-evidence, or if worse comes to worst, can start considering settlement strategies more heavily.

You see, the very worst thing you can do in a multi-million dollar lawsuit is to be surprised at trial. So whatever the evidence is, even if it's bad (especially if it's bad), SCO wants to know it *now*.

As to why (a) Linus and (b) RMS - who better to discuss (a) the origin and evolution of the Linux kernel, and (b) the intent behind and meaning of the GPL.

re: reasons for subpoenas
by ryan on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:22 UTC

another reason for subpeonas for the analysts might be to show the relationship between the analysts and SCO itself (not just MS). how much money will these analyst groups make from SCO. Also, how knowledgeable are these analyst "experts." They've made statements regarding the veracity of the sco claim but what do they know about code or IPR Law, probably not much. Ibm can show just how ignorant and self-serving "analyst" firms really are and how inappropriate it was for them to say anything.

anyway you cut it, its a wise move on IBM's part.

Top Speed
by dpi on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:45 UTC

"Not likely, what is more probable is that Stallman goes into some tirade about how it should be illegal to charge money for software"

Free as in speech, not Beer. If you'd have read gnu.org you'd have found out that Stallmong, amonmg others, do not have a problem with selling (Free/speech) software at all. The license actually allows it!

Flash: SCO has destroyed the GPL !!!
by Annon on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:46 UTC

"High Profit" -- Ha! Three billion is chump change compared to destroying the GPL. Why? Because with the GPL in question, no one will ever be able to introduce the one factor which makes it impossible to do a recount on these new fangled touch-screen voting machines -- and that's open source software. Because the software on these voting machines is "proprietary," SCO's little chump change lawsuit, which involves the GPL now, will have the ultimate result of keeping OSS out of our voting machine system. There have already been challenges to the vote counts in elections Florida (go figure) and several other places that resulted in the impossible act of doing a recount because, you guessed it, the software running the new voting machines is "proprietary." The solution would be OSS, along with a printed paper trail, but now we have the GPL problem with SCO's cute little lawsuit challenging it.

SCO, what are you really up to, and who is really backing this challenge to the GPL???

Interesting links:

http://www.thislife.org/

http://www.blackboxvoting.com

http://www.ecotalk.org

http://www.thehill.com/news/012903/hagel.aspx)

http://www.lancastercountydemocrats.org/matulka.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz

http://www.GregPalast.com

http://www.thomhartmann.com

http://www.FairVoteMN.org

Wake up folks! Wake up soon!

SCO, shutup god.
by Nicholas James on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:49 UTC

Ya go after a big company like Novel, that's smart. Idiots when are they gonna die? It is like a soap opera, SCO is insulting our inteligence.

Top Speed
by dpi on Thu 13th Nov 2003 18:51 UTC

"RMS is no lawyer"

Neither is SCO, however both FSF and SCO *have* lawyers. What's your point anyway?

"and he won't be doing anything other than defending the 'copyleft' theory to a bunch of lawyers and judges in Utah."

Ok, let's assume he will. Then, what kind of use will that have to the judges? It's not a discussion about copyleft or copyright, it's a discussion about copright infringement. The other discussion is offtopic. I doubt he would do so, because i think he's smart enought to act in honesty in about the Linux kernel instead of his own interests; which is actually how a court should work imo. His site also shows his interests for this case.

"As for Torvalds, his 'crack' comment only hurts his credibility, as does his comments about hiring hit men if stolen code is found."

Yeah, 2 flames against.. how many again? It doesn't hurt his credibility at all imo. The first comment is obviously not serious, it is a joke. If you find it his credibility is lost, fine, but just don't talk for other people, do you promise that hun?

RE: ...
by Bill Sykes on Thu 13th Nov 2003 19:29 UTC

"They better be careful or else RMS will turn into the incredible hulk. I wouldn't want to be the SCO!"

Wow, I think you have a strong grasp of this case.

re: @Mike
by Mike on Thu 13th Nov 2003 19:33 UTC

I know that RMS will wear a tie in court. What kind of tie is what I dread. Until he gets a damn haircut, puts on normal business clothes and stops talking like a damn socialist lunatic, many of the people who matter will be repelled.

He's endorsing a Democrat for president, yet he claims to care about freedom? At least ESR is consistent with the freedom message by being a libertarian. All non-libertarians give not a wit about true freedom.

Re: RMS
by dpi on Thu 13th Nov 2003 19:51 UTC

"Until he gets a damn haircut, puts on normal business clothes"

Who are you to demand what (any)one has to wear? I ask you again: a) who the hell do you think you are? b) wtf does it matter what he wears.

"At least ESR is consistent with the freedom message by being a libertarian. All non-libertarians give not a wit about true freedom."

Yeah, whatever. Anarcho-syndicalism is yet another ''ideology'' which is pro-free speech, among other anarchistic ''ideologies''.

I'm wondering who the lunatix are.

re: Urg, libertarianism
by MattPie on Thu 13th Nov 2003 19:53 UTC

He's endorsing a Democrat for president, yet he claims to care about freedom? At least ESR is consistent with the freedom message by being a libertarian. All non-libertarians give not a wit about true freedom.

Not to turn this into a political debate (moderators: feel free to toss this out, I know it's off-topic), but:
Think about how much some companies are trying to invade our privacy and take away our freedoms now. DRM, RFID tags, data mining, etc.. Now, think about what happens when we go to a very minimal government and get rid of all the oversight on these companies. Libertarianism only works if you trust companies to do the right thing without being forced, which I for one don't.

RE: ...
by Applesandoranges on Thu 13th Nov 2003 20:39 UTC

'"They better be careful or else RMS will turn into the incredible hulk. I wouldn't want to be the SCO!"

Wow, I think you have a strong grasp of this case.'

It's called a joke, Sykes. You really don't have a sense of humor, do you?

Hey, TopSpeed!
by Great Cthulhu on Thu 13th Nov 2003 20:51 UTC

We thought you were dead! So, do you still think SCO has a case?

BTW, I never made any secret about me being both Great Cthulhu and Archie Steel. In fact, I came forward right away when I changed nicknames. The reason I recently switched back to Archie Steel (at home) is that there was a name-stealing troll hanging around the comments section.

So, if you're back, does that mean that Coral Snake will be back too? :-)

@TopSpeed
by Great Cthulhu on Thu 13th Nov 2003 20:53 UTC

Which is an unusually accurate theory for Groklaw to have come up with.

Right. Way back then, we established in these comments section that you knew nothing about law - and there you go disparaging the work of a brillant legal secretary, who actually supports her arguments with legal documents!

Funny how you only show up when there's a SCO story on OSNews...are you a SCO employee, by any chance? :-)

@dpi
by Great Cthulhu on Thu 13th Nov 2003 21:16 UTC

Don't bother arguing with TopSpeed - he'll just go on and on about how Torvalds said he'd hire a hit man to deal with patent issues, how I'm supposedly an IBM employee, how IBM probably put UNIX code into Linux, etc.

Of course, now that the lawsuit has entered discovery phase, we can see that SCO is deliberately trying to avoid revealing the alleged copied code. IBM has filed two separate motions to compel discovery and SCO has tried to dance around those demands and introduce dilatory tactics - however the judge wasn't duped and has fixed dates for oral arguments.

The more this story progresses, the clearer it becomes that SCO doesn't have a case. Only SCO's management, misled investors (watch out for more lawsuits!) and profoundly anti-Linux posters such as TopSpeed still claim that they have a chance...

For all you folks who still believe SCO has a case against IBM, read this:

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1303_0_3_0_C

Yes.. Novell has essentially waved their magic wand and made the whole thing disappear. All IBM has to do is to hand over a piece of paper signed by Novell to the judge and everyone goes home. Case closed. No worries.

Thanks for info Great Cthulhu [n/t]
by dpi on Thu 13th Nov 2003 21:58 UTC

n/t

v Archie Steel
by Top Speed on Thu 13th Nov 2003 22:37 UTC
I see you're still having problem with HTML
by Great Cthulhu aka Archie Steel on Thu 13th Nov 2003 23:17 UTC

(You want to watch that Bold closing tag)

Man, I forgot how funny you were! Thanks for coming back, man!

You mean wished Archie, I know how you Linux trolls think!

Nah, I'm a buddhist so I would never wish for anyone's death, not even my worst enemy. And you're just an Internet troll. We really did wonder where you went, you were so active for a couple of weeks and then OSNews stopped publishing stories about SCO and you just...disappeared (along with Coral Snake).

Are you back because there's a new SCO story, or did you just stop taking your medication? First you claim that Torvalds advocates hiring hit men, then you'll claim that I want you dead as well...if you ask me, that's borderline paranoid schizophrenia.

What a boatload, you're using 2 different ID's on this very thread! Linux fanatics like you will do anything to push this stuff, including dream up multiple usernames to spout from.

Sure. I changed the cookie at home because of the name-stealing troll, but I'm too lazy to do it at work (which, incidentally, isn't IBM). BTW I'm not a "Linux fanatic", I'm a Linux enthusiast. Unlike you, I don't believe in fanaticism.

She's lucky IBM is on the other side or she would have already been subpoened by them.

That sentence doesn't make sense. Please re-word it.

I've seen her documents, it's all so one sided she's probably over in Finland or something.

Her documents? They're court documents! How more authentic can you get?!? And she's definitely in the U.S., for your information.

No, but I see you're still posting from that IBM Canada subnet.

Nope. Look at the whois information: the sub-net only covers IP addresses from 209.47.215.192 - 209.47.215.255. My work's IP happens to be outside of that range. Figure it out.

I don't work for IBM. I'd prove it to you by giving you my real IP address but I'm afraid you're the kind of maniac who'd get me in trouble with my boss. You can ask Eugenia for proof, as she must have the complete address on the logs, but I doubt she'll bother responding to such an immature request.

Oh please
by Wrawrat on Thu 13th Nov 2003 23:25 UTC

Could you both take your little personal war somewhere else? Give your e-mail or something like this but please stop polluting threads... Thanks.

Personal war?
by Great Cthulhu aka Archie Steel on Thu 13th Nov 2003 23:36 UTC

Nah, just reminiscing about old times. But you're welcome to report us for abuse, though!

(Give him my e-mail address? Are you nuts?)

Seriously, to get back on the subject, this really looks like the beginning of the end for SCO. Even Daniel Lyons from Forbes, which has been somewhat sympathetic towards them, is starting to see them for what they really are. In any case, he sounds much more critical of them in his second article on the SCO/IBM:

http://www.forbes.com/2003/11/13/cz_dl_1113sco.html?partner=yahoo&r...

(There. I'm back on topic. Happy?)

SCO has a problem
by Maynard on Fri 14th Nov 2003 00:43 UTC

I think no competent judge is going to overlook the fact that the GPL has a clear intent. There are actually many things to it.

First is use. Anyone can use a GPL product. That is fine. You probably do nto have licensing issues if you just use GPL programs. If you do not try to modify it, that is. So if you are treating your software like a black box, you do not look inside, there is no problem.

The second is redistribution. You are allowed to redistribute under the terms of the same license. This is a little different from the first, and there is scope here for license violation, if you decide to only redistribute bnaries for example. You have to offer source. This is a potential problem for SCO. They have tried to append a license to the software to override the GPL, which in its intentions made it very clear it does not want to be overridden.

A third involves modifying the source, which is usually the main issue when license violation is involved. You see, for redistribution, the original source is still there, and that is usually the preferred method of getting it anyway. However, the only source for modified source is the guy who modifies it in the first place.

then we move onto the intent of the GPL. It is not legally binding, it is not in what you could call "legal language". But it des provide a way to interpret any ambiguous parts in the language of the license.

A judge is not going to just disregard that the intention was to motivate people to contribute on the basis that if anyone improved the program and distribute it, the authors immediately were entitled to the modified sources. The reward for contributing was that you were entitled to any changes too. You also gave those rights to everyone else, not excluding anyone. This model has been working very well, and there are probably hundreds of millions of lines of open source code to prove it (see Linux, GNOME, KDE, GNU, blah blah blah)

So it would be very brave of a judge to actually just disregard that and overthrow the GPL. The only people ho have problems with the GPL are those hell bent on getting what does not belong to them. It is difficult to argue as a license violator. No one forced SCO to use GPL code in the first place. So it is going to be tempting for IBM lawyers to stand up in court and say that.

If the GPL is overruled, or only sections of it, the code wil not necessarily belong to the public domain. Think of all the authors of the code as owning their respective bits as well. They remain free to license their code as they see fit, which is how many programs are dual licensed. UnlessSCO decides to contact al the authors of the code it is using and ask for permission to use the code, it could be actually a bti unworkable.

But then IANAL.

Maynard
by Top Speed on Fri 14th Nov 2003 01:14 UTC

Where the Linux/GPL relationship breaks down is simple: Linus et al can't transfer or expand the rights to copy and redistribute code that they haven't verified as free to do this.

The GPL claims to give anyone the right to copy and redistribute the code (as well as providing the source code) without verifying they have the rights to do this. Torvalds freely admits he doesn't check for IP ownership _on principle_, you can spare the lecture on why he won't do this but the bottom line is he doesn't verify ownership at all.

So, even though he makes no attempt to determine ownership (more importantly, he flat out ignores the possibility when warned directly it is occuring), he attempts to grant wide priveledges over the code such as distribution.

This is a natural conflict that has led to this current fiasco, and the judge's remedy will have to resolve it one way or another.

Re: Annon (IP: ---.lnclncty.or.charter.com)
by drsmithy on Fri 14th Nov 2003 01:29 UTC

Because the software on these voting machines is "proprietary," SCO's little chump change lawsuit, which involves the GPL now, will have the ultimate result of keeping OSS out of our voting machine system.

In no way, shape or form is the GPL a requirement for public access to voting software source code.

Voting software should be *public domain*, not GPL.

The solution would be OSS, along with a printed paper trail, but now we have the GPL problem with SCO's cute little lawsuit challenging it.

OSS != GPL. The GPL could be completely destroyed and people will go on happily developing open source software.

Re: Maynard (IP: ---.uct.ac.za)
by drsmithy on Fri 14th Nov 2003 01:44 UTC

I think no competent judge is going to overlook the fact that the GPL has a clear intent. There are actually many things to it.

It's intent is to make a political statement - to make as much software as possible communal property.

So it would be very brave of a judge to actually just disregard that and overthrow the GPL. The only people ho have problems with the GPL are those hell bent on getting what does not belong to them.

No, there are also people who don't think that person A should get all of B's work just because B used some of A's work.

The GPL has the potential to be spectacularly unfair, that's why a lot of people don't like it. The LGPL is a much more reasonable and fair license.

RE: ----
by Maynard on Fri 14th Nov 2003 03:00 UTC

Re: drsmithy

But that is the very point. SCO, or Caldera would have known this. Contracts, of which the GPL is one, are very straight things. Judges do not like to just overturn contracts because it is not goo for the contracts system. when people enter into contracts, they should know what they are gettign into, and they should both rely on the law to safeguard that contract. If you start just overturning contracts because a big company like SCO doesn't like a particular contract, then you have a problem.

The thing about the GPL is that it is not unfair. No one is forced to use it, and if you use it, you should know what you are getting into. Money is not the object. A lot of people do like it too, and a lot do not like the LGPL too. I personally prefer LGPL too.

Re: Top Speed

The point is that Linus has code he wrote, and so does Stallman, and so do a lot of other people. If SCO gets the GPL revoked, that code belongs to Linus and Stallman and the like. They will also have to remove the code from their products too. No one has to verify that Linus wrote certain pieces of code. Unless you are alleging he has not written any code, and that code he claims was his was not really his.

Linus does not ignore potential violations which are known. The point is that each coder is responsible for his commits. The code bears names there, so it can be known who put something there that was not supposed to be there. Go to ANY software company. The coders on the ground do not research patents. Linus has talked to his lawyers about this. Anyway its a waste of time to do this. How about every programmer having to go to research on patents every time they want to code something new. It is not feasible. Copyrights are even more impossible too. SCO code is not PUBLISHED, which is something copyright law in its original form (referrign to the written word etc) probably assumed.

Do you knw how much development would stall if you tried to reearch on these things. There is no requirement to do this. I am sure you are less likely to be found guilty of violation if you have never esearched these issues.

Maynard
by Top Speed on Fri 14th Nov 2003 03:51 UTC

Linus does not ignore potential violations which are known.

Well he certainly should have questioned huge portions of Unix being contributed by a major Unix vendor as likely being infringing, instead of acting all surprised now which is actually quite absurd. His famous comment "I don't look up patents _on principle_" was uttered in response to one of his associates warning him his current processes were likely infringing.

Go to ANY software company. The coders on the ground do not research patents. Linus has talked to his lawyers about this. Anyway its a waste of time to do this. How about every programmer having to go to research on patents every time they want to code something new.

Of course the programmers don't, but since they are 'companies' they have resources such as legal and resource divisions who do. They can also provide guarantees of legal use, and complete restitution for illegal infringement.

All of this is possible from most any proprietary software vendor, but open source and it's freelance group of programmers offer none of it really.

Do you knw how much development would stall if you tried to reearch on these things.

R&D is also another benefit of software 'companies' that you don't get from freeware. Without profits, there's no money for research, so products like Linux are forever stuck cloning proprietary products but without any new or unique features themselves.

@Top Speed
by mountainpenguin on Fri 14th Nov 2003 04:17 UTC

Where the Linux/GPL relationship breaks down is simple: Linus et al can't transfer or expand the rights to copy and redistribute code that they haven't verified as free to do this.

Wrong. Linus isn't transfering or expading the rights. The fact is Linus cannot. Every individual who has contributed code to Linux has made that decision as an individual.

The GPL claims to give anyone the right to copy and redistribute the code (as well as providing the source code) without verifying they have the rights to do this. Torvalds freely admits he doesn't check for IP ownership _on principle_, you can spare the lecture on why he won't do this but the bottom line is he doesn't verify ownership at all.

Wrong. You still assume that Linus holds the total control and rights to every part of the code. This simply isn't true. Contrary to popular belief Linus does not own Linux. What he owns is a trademark Linux as well as copyright to parts of Linux that he has contributed. Linux is a collective property of every individual who has contributed code. When someone contributes code to Linux the code isn't somehow handed over to Linus where it becomes his. The contributor still holds copyright to that code. Contributing code doesn't mean you've waved your rights to those code but in fact the rights are fully protected under GPL. Every individual is responsible for their own contribution since those contributions are still their own property.

So, even though he makes no attempt to determine ownership (more importantly, he flat out ignores the possibility when warned directly it is occuring), he attempts to grant wide priveledges over the code such as distribution.

Again, Linus isn't the one granting any sort of privileges. It's each and every Linux contributors who has granted these privilege through GPL. It just happens Linus is one of many individuals who are granting this privilege and nothing more.

Linus is merely managing his own "tree". (Word tree is referred to as a collection of source code by developers) Red Hat has their own tree. So does SuSE, Mandrake, Slackware, and even SCO has their own tree. Linus has no say in what should be part of other people's tree.

This is a natural conflict that has led to this current fiasco, and the judge's remedy will have to resolve it one way or another.

There is nothing to remedy. That's how GPL works. The "natural conflict" you speak of is manifested by your lack of understanding of GPL, Open Source development model and copyright laws. SCO vs. IBM is about alleged breach of contract and has nothing to do GPL and therefore the judge's decision has no bearing on the matter.

@TopSpeed
by Archie Steel on Fri 14th Nov 2003 04:59 UTC

The GPL claims to give anyone the right to copy and redistribute the code (as well as providing the source code) without verifying they have the rights to do this.

This is patently false. The GPL specifically forbid contributing proprietary code - you cannot contribute code for which you don't hold copyright. If such a thing was to occur, then the offending code has to be removed in order for the GPL-covered software to be redistributable. Note that this doesn't give the owner of the misappropriated code any rights on the copyrighted GPL work of the other participants to the code, if there is more than one programmer.

Unless you cede your copyright to the FSF, which is entirely voluntary and not that common anymore, you still own copyrights on any contributed code. The GPL is simply a permission to use, modify and redistribute the code, an extension of those copyrights.

Torvalds freely admits he doesn't check for IP ownership _on principle

Another false statement. Linus has said that he doesn't concern himself with checking for patents, which is not the same thing as copyright. You're being deliberately misleading here.

As for checking for patents...let's say you're a programmer. You have an idea for a program and you begin to code it. Do you stop and go check through all the patents to see if someone has though of something that might be close enough to yours so that they would have a chance of winning a patent infringement case?

If you answer yes then you are a) not a programmer or b) lying. No programmer does that. None. Lawyers specialized in patent law will handle this (which is what Linux said in that post as well), if you're a big enough company. Even then - big companies get caught with patent infringement as well: Microsoft did, a couple of times. SCO did, according to IBM - who's got one of the biggest patent portfolio in the IT industry.

So what Linux has said is quite true: programmers should not bother with checking for patents. That doesn't mean they should knowingly infringe patents, just that they should let lawyers take care of such things.

In any case the legal standing of software patents is much more complicated than for copyrights. You shouldn't confuse the two - they are quite different from each other (as well as from Trade Secrets, the other kind of IP).

@drsmithy
by Archie Steel on Fri 14th Nov 2003 05:11 UTC

Voting software should be *public domain*, not GPL.

Well, at the very least the code should be available. It could conceivably remain proprietary - the important thing is that the citizens must be able to see the code.

It's intent is to make a political statement - to make as much software as possible communal property.

Judges are not interested in statements. Any political effect of the GPL comes after the main intent, which is to make code licensed under it free. Whatever the long-term plans of RMS may be, the GPL remains a practical license concerned with the here and now. In other words, it does not contain political language, despite the philosophy behind it and its political ramifications. This is an important distinction in legal matters.

The "intent" that was referred to by the OP is not what RMS intends the GPL to achieve, but rather the very down-to-earth effects of the GPL on software in covers.

No, there are also people who don't think that person A should get all of B's work just because B used some of A's work.

If B doesn't want to abide by the terms of the license A chose freely, then B can't use A's work at all. If B doesn't want to redistribute his work under the GPL, then he only has to use some other software instead. That's only fair.

The GPL has the potential to be spectacularly unfair,

Not at all, since it is based on consent by B.

that's why a lot of people don't like it.

And yet a lot of people like it enough to release their software under it. There are tons of GPLed apps - it's actually quite a popular license, all things considered.

The LGPL is a much more reasonable and fair license.

For libraries I tend to agree that it's easier to work with. But they are both "fair" license because they require consent between licensor and licensee and are only a more permissive extension of copyright laws. Are you saying that copyright is "unfair"?

@TopSpeed
by Archie Steel on Fri 14th Nov 2003 05:26 UTC

Well he certainly should have questioned huge portions of Unix being contributed by a major Unix vendor as likely being infringing,

This is still an unproven allegation. That you cite it as fact indicates you are not basing your arguments on proof, but on faith that this proof exists.

In fact, facts seem to indicate that there haven't been huge portions of SysV code imported into Linux. The fact that Novell - who owned the code at some point - is confident that Linux is safe enough to buy SuSE should make it clear to everyone that SCO's allegations are bogus.

Also, if SCO was telling the truth, why would they not identify which code has been copied to IBM during discovery - the phase the lawsuit is currently in?

The time has come for SCO to put up or shut up if they ever hope to win the case. Why aren't they putting up? Could it be because they have nothing to put up at all? It's not in their interest to hide this now, from a legal point of view - in fact, the judge may compel them to present IBM with what the latter are asking for...

IBM is actually giving the OSS community a lesson in law - it's fascinating to see how it's moving against SCO with the skill of a chess master.

SCO has already lost.

Re: Archie Steel (IP: ---.205-131-66.mc.videotron.ca
by drsmithy on Fri 14th Nov 2003 06:24 UTC

If B doesn't want to abide by the terms of the license A chose freely, then B can't use A's work at all. If B doesn't want to redistribute his work under the GPL, then he only has to use some other software instead. That's only fair.

No argument there, but you're missing my point.

Not at all, since it is based on consent by B.

All (legal) contracts are based on consent by both parties.

And yet a lot of people like it enough to release their software under it. There are tons of GPLed apps - it's actually quite a popular license, all things considered.

There's also "tons" of shareware, public domain and proprietry software, as well.

I never said there weren't a lot of people who liked the GPL, I just said there were a low of people who didn't like it.

For libraries I tend to agree that it's easier to work with. But they are both "fair" license because they require consent between licensor and licensee and are only a more permissive extension of copyright laws.

All legal contracts and licenses require the consent of both parties. This does not automatically make them fair.

Are you saying that copyright is "unfair"?

It has the potential to be. Modern copyright law is heavily biased towards content creators.

The unfair aspect of the GPL is that it's quite possible for the amount of *new* code - ie: work - that has to be GPLed to exceed the amount of code that was used in the first place. To my mind, requiring to give more than you get is unfair, as is being required to return completely *new* ideas and code. For those making a significant investment in creating something new, this is not an ideal situation (at least, if they want to make money selling it).

The LGPL avoids this potential problem, because it doesn't require "derived works" also be GPLed. It's a win-win for everyone because it allows extensive code re-use while still allowing creators to retain control over their new code.

The problem with the GPL isn't that people are "forced" to use it - nobody is "forced" to use any license - it's that the costs have the potential to quickly and excessively outweigh the benefits.

Re: Maynard (IP: ---.uct.ac.za)
by drsmithy on Fri 14th Nov 2003 06:31 UTC

But that is the very point. SCO, or Caldera would have known this. Contracts, of which the GPL is one, are very straight things. Judges do not like to just overturn contracts because it is not goo for the contracts system. when people enter into contracts, they should know what they are gettign into, and they should both rely on the law to safeguard that contract. If you start just overturning contracts because a big company like SCO doesn't like a particular contract, then you have a problem.

I think the problem here is that SCO *didn't* want their code to be GPLed, not that they misunderstood the intent of the GPL.

In other words, their side of the GPL "contract" wasn't voluntary.

At least, that's how I'm interpreting it.

The thing about the GPL is that it is not unfair. No one is forced to use it, and if you use it, you should know what you are getting into.

This argument is specious. _All_ *legal* contracts and licenses require the consent of all parties to be valid.

DrSmithy
by Anonymous on Fri 14th Nov 2003 10:59 UTC

"Modern copyright law is heavily biased toward content creators"? What color is the sky on the planet where you live?

First off, who do you think should have the rights to a creation if not its creator? Lessee, you spend a month making a painting and then all rights to it are owned by - me? Why? So to give rights to content creators is not "bias," it's a recognition that without them there'd be no content to have rights in. This is not "modern," it's the way copyright law has always been.

Second, modern copyright law has in fact been moving decidedly away from creators' rights toward corporate rights. If you want to know who owns the rights to the latest Disney cartoon, it ain't the guys who drew the pictures. That's why Congress keeps passing laws extending copyright further and further past the lifetime of the creator - the creator isn't there any more, but the corporation that owns the rights may well be.

Re: Anonymous (IP: ---.74.79.131.Dial1.Philadelphia1.Level3.net)
by drsmithy on Fri 14th Nov 2003 11:40 UTC

First off, who do you think should have the rights to a creation if not its creator? Lessee, you spend a month making a painting and then all rights to it are owned by - me?

No-one can take the idea of your painting away from you.

So to give rights to content creators is not "bias," it's a recognition that without them there'd be no content to have rights in.

Bollocks.

This is not "modern," it's the way copyright law has always been.

Yeah, for all the few hundred-odd years copyright has been around. Because, we all know there wasn't any music, art or other creativity produced by the preceding six thousand years of human civilisation, don't we - so, naturally, if there weren't any copyright laws we'd return to those days of no music, no art, no stories and no inventions, right ?

"Old" copyright law provided content creators with a limited amount of control for a very limited period of time. "Modern" copyright law gives content creators vastly more control effectively forever.

Second, modern copyright law has in fact been moving decidedly away from creators' rights toward corporate rights. If you want to know who owns the rights to the latest Disney cartoon, it ain't the guys who drew the pictures.

Hate to break it to you, but those corporations *are* the content creators as far as the law is concerned. Regardless, it applies to normal people just as much as corporations.

That's why Congress keeps passing laws extending copyright further and further past the lifetime of the creator - the creator isn't there any more, but the corporation that owns the rights may well be.

Which is precisely what I was talking about.

Copyright law is completely out of control. Ignoring for a second how ridiculous the whole concept of trying to equate ideas and physical property is, the laws themselves have greatly exceeded both the purpose and spirit they originally had (at least, for copyright in the US).

sigh
by Mike on Fri 14th Nov 2003 14:44 UTC

"Who are you to demand what (any)one has to wear? I ask you again: a) who the hell do you think you are? b) wtf does it matter what he wears."

It does because serious people treat people who dress properly differently from people who dress like morons. While everyone knows they shouldn't judge books by their covers, it happens anyway. RMS doesn't help this situation; he exacerbates it.

If he looks like a serious business person and speaks with the savvy that it requires. Until such time, he will be considered by many to be a fringe lunatic, despite his programming and visionary genius that gave birth to GNU.

I just want his image to reflect his intellect. His image contradicts his intellect, and in the public square, it's counterproductive. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

v re:libertarianism
by Mike on Fri 14th Nov 2003 14:48 UTC
Re: Unfair parts of the GPL
by Maynard on Fri 14th Nov 2003 14:57 UTC

The unfair aspect of the GPL is that it's quite possible for the amount of *new* code - ie: work - that has to be GPLed to exceed the amount of code that was used in the first place. To my mind, requiring to give more than you get is unfair

But its, say, thousands of people contributing the code. Each contributes say, for arguments sake, 1/000th and gets well, the whole thing. Yes, a program can grow beyond its original author and then the authors contribution becomes rather miniscule in comparison, but if you think of giving and taking in terms of gain/loss then you will feel this is unfair. With the GPL you lose nothing by giving. In fact, you give something, and you are repaid a thousand fold.

RE: Dr. Smithy
by Jud on Fri 14th Nov 2003 17:41 UTC

Howdy, your friendly U.S. lawyer here again. I'm "Anonymous" - forgot to put my name on my previous post in reply to you.

"Hate to break it to you, but those corporations *are* the content creators as far as the law is concerned."

I suppose, in a manner of speaking. To be precise, it is customary these days for content creators to agree in their employment contracts to turn over some portion or all (usually all) of their bundle of rights under copyright law to their employers. OTOH, before copyright law, something analogous happened between artists and their patrons.

"No-one can take the idea of your painting away from you."

How much am I offered for this fine idea of a painting? Tough to make a living as an artist in your world.

"Because, we all know there wasn't any music, art or other creativity produced by the preceding six thousand years of human civilisation, don't we - so, naturally, if there weren't any copyright laws we'd return to those days of no music, no art, no stories and no inventions, right?"

News flash - Paying people is an incentive. If you have to pay someone for something they produce, they have more incentive to do it than if you can simply take it from them. Helps to keep artists/authors/programmers eating, allows them to produce more art/books/programs.

Do you have a job? If so, would you do the work you are doing if you weren't paid for it? Would you do it 40+ hours a week if you weren't paid for it? How would you survive if you weren't paid for it?

Does this mean I support the current tendency toward corporate dominance of the "creative sector" of the economy? Nope - there we agree. After all, whether it is you taking the work of art I have labored to produce without paying me anything for it, or my corporate employer/agent/marketer screwing me contractually to accomplish the same thing, we've still got starving artists when we're done.

I like the products of creativity - art, books, music, computer programs - and feel the creators should be rewarded, both because they deserve it for having produced something beautiful, and to encourage them to do more of it.

mountainpenguin
by top speed on Fri 14th Nov 2003 18:18 UTC

Wrong. Linus isn't transfering (sic) or expading (sic) the rights. The fact is Linus cannot. Every individual who has contributed code to Linux has made that decision as an individual.

Actually I am very right. The GPL itself grants the right of others to modify or even redistribute any code released under it, but Torvalds may not have that right in the first place if he ASSUMES the code heritage is free. Torvalds is the first one who releases the new Linux core, so he is ultimately responsible for checking the lineage, which he doesn't currently do whatsoever, even when warned he is infringing.

Wrong. You still assume that Linus holds the total control and rights to every part of the code. This simply isn't true. Contrary to popular belief Linus does not own Linux. What he owns is a trademark Linux as well as copyright to parts of Linux that he has contributed. Linux is a collective property of every individual who has contributed code. When someone contributes code to Linux the code isn't somehow handed over to Linus where it becomes his. The contributor still holds copyright to that code. Contributing code doesn't mean you've waved your rights to those code but in fact the rights are fully protected under GPL. Every individual is responsible for their own contribution since those contributions are still their own property.

I don't assume anything, I am simply stating the fact that when Torvalds releases a new kernel via GPL he is effectively telling others they have the right to further distribute that code when in fact that right may not exist as he has done absolutely no verification of his own authorization to do so. Your argument is actually helping mine - since others own the copyright, Linus should not have the right to grant others the right via GPL to redistribute themselves.

Again, Linus isn't the one granting any sort of privileges. It's each and every Linux contributors who has granted these privilege through GPL. It just happens Linus is one of many individuals who are granting this privilege and nothing more.

Once again Linus is granting all sorts of privileges once he releases the code via GPL. He doesn't own the copyright, nor does he verify that others might (even when warned), so he shouldn't be allowed to do this, and probably won't once this is all said and done.

There is nothing to remedy. That's how GPL works. The "natural conflict" you speak of is manifested by your lack of understanding of GPL, Open Source development model and copyright laws. SCO vs. IBM is about alleged breach of contract and has nothing to do GPL and therefore the judge's decision has no bearing on the matter.

That's how the GPL would like to work - to give anyone the right to freely copy the code without first verifying it doesn't belong to others and that they agree. And yes this is very relevant to the SCO case since IBM's first line of defense has been to throw the GPL out there. Funny how the Linux 'savior' IBM may very well be the one who destroys it.

Archie Steel aka Great Whatever
by top speed on Fri 14th Nov 2003 18:21 UTC

This is patently false. The GPL specifically forbid contributing proprietary code - you cannot contribute code for which you don't hold copyright. If such a thing was to occur, then the offending code has to be removed in order for the GPL-covered software to be redistributable. Note that this doesn't give the owner of the misappropriated code any rights on the copyrighted GPL work of the other participants to the code, if there is more than one programmer.

Well Linus better start policing himself better to conform to the GPL then, by verifying code lineage especially when warned he is infringing. And they better get ready to turn back the clock a few years on Linux code altogether if/when IBM's contributions are found to be illegal.

Unless you cede your copyright to the FSF, which is entirely voluntary and not that common anymore, you still own copyrights on any contributed code. The GPL is simply a permission to use, modify and redistribute the code, an extension of those copyrights.

Exactly, Linus is attempting to grant others the right to redistribute code he released under GPL, although he has made no attempt to verify his right to do so other than accepting the contributor's word for it.

Another false statement. Linus has said that he doesn't concern himself with checking for patents, which is not the same thing as copyright. You're being deliberately misleading here.

I'm not being misleading at all, you are. Linus doesn't check IP rights period, be it patents, copyrights, whatever.

As for checking for patents...let's say you're a programmer. You have an idea for a program and you begin to code it. Do you stop and go check through all the patents to see if someone has though of something that might be close enough to yours so that they would have a chance of winning a patent infringement case?

No but the change of accidentally stealing someone's IP is very low, and commercial companies provide protection to their customers. Linux offers no protection, and Torvalds admittedly looks the other way EVEN WHEN WARNED HE IS INFRINGING by instituting portions of Unix into the Linux codebase.

So what Linux (sic) has said is quite true: programmers should not bother with checking for patents. That doesn't mean they should knowingly infringe patents, just that they should let lawyers take care of such things.

Right, too bad there are few if any lawyers working for OSS programmers. Bottom line, no checks are done by the OSS crowd, whereby commercial companies do have legal divisions to handle such requirements and any potential infringement by their user base.

Despite all your (empty) arguments, the bottom line remains the same: Linus et al make no checks for intellectual property ownership, have no legal departments to assist, and provide no protection to users from legal liability.

@StopSpeed
by Great Cthulhu aka Archie Steel on Fri 14th Nov 2003 19:31 UTC

Well Linus better start policing himself better to conform to the GPL then, by verifying code lineage especially when warned he is infringing.

What specific infringing code are you talking about, exactly? I know you're legally-challenged, so I'll remind you of this fundamental principal: innocent until proven guilty.

I'm not being misleading at all, you are. Linus doesn't check IP rights period, be it patents, copyrights, whatever.

No, the issue you're constantly referring to (in fact, your entire argument rests on that one e-mail Linus wrote) is specifically about patents. Furthermore, enforcement of copyright is the duty of the copyright holder. If proprietary code appears in GPL software, it's up to the original owner of the code to identify the code so that the maintainers can take it out. The very first reaction to the allegations that there was stolen code in Linux from Linus was "tell us what the code is, and we'll remove it ASAP - we don't want stolen code in our software any more than you do."

commercial companies provide protection to their customers

No they don't. Re-read that EULA. You're not protected at all. Commercial companies do not protect their users against legal liability. Stop making this false statement.

Torvalds admittedly looks the other way EVEN WHEN WARNED HE IS INFRINGING by instituting portions of Unix into the Linux codebase.

Again, a false statement. Tell me, when exactly did Linus look the other way when infringing Unix code was identified inside Linux? You must have a link to some credible news source, right?

If you do not provide that link, I shall assume that, like SCO, you are "smoking crack." :-)

Right, too bad there are few if any lawyers working for OSS programmers. Bottom line, no checks are done by the OSS crowd, whereby commercial companies do have legal divisions to handle such requirements and any potential infringement by their user base.

Actually, that's not true either. A great deal of OSS code is provided by corporations (such as IBM, HP, Sun, etc.) while some more is provided by other institutions such as universities, the OSDL, etc. In this particular case, IBM is accused of having provided stolen code. The thing is, IBM (like all the other companies named above) has lawyers. In fact, they have lots of lawyers. It's the job of some of these lawyers to make sure any code that is released under the GPL is clean.

The problem is that you base your argument on a faulty assumption, that there are no commercial company contributing to OSS, while in fact a lot of the important OSS work done nowadays is by corporations.

Again, you display a lot of faith in the fact that SCO is telling the truth, ignoring any reasonable arguments thrown your way. Example: you ignored the fact that Novell, who should know a thing or two about the SysV codebase, bought SuSE Linux with total peace of mind, claiming that SCO's allegation are groundless. You also ignore the fact that SCO is trying to avoid giving out what's being asked of them during Discovery, despite the fact that this is greatly hurting their chance of prevailing in court, a decision that can only be explained by the fact that there is in fact NO infringing code.

No, all of your arguments seem based on faith in SCO, as well as that one e-mail sent by Linus some time ago. That's an incredibly weak position, and claiming that my arguments are empty won't fool anyone.

SCO has already lost.

P.S.
by Great Cthulhu aka Archie Steel on Fri 14th Nov 2003 20:11 UTC

You shouldn't use bold in your comments, that's bad form. It is the equivalent of shouting and hampers your credibility. If you want to use emphasis, use italics instead.

@drsmithy
by Drill Sgt on Fri 14th Nov 2003 20:39 UTC

"I think the problem here is that SCO *didn't* want their code to be GPLed, not that they misunderstood the intent of the GPL.

In other words, their side of the GPL "contract" wasn't voluntary."


Personally I find this one hard to believe. The license is very clear in what is required. They should not have released things under the GPL if they did not want them to be GPL. By doing so they accepted the terms of that license, therefore making their side of the contract voluntary.

This almost seems the same to me as someone who buys 1 copy of MS Windows and installs it on multiple machines, even though clearly the license says it can only be installed on ONE machine. So if I do not agree with the terms of that license I can do what I want to with it? Not the way it works, as has been held up in US courts before.




Re: Maynard (IP: ---.uct.ac.za)
by drsmithy on Fri 14th Nov 2003 22:52 UTC

But its, say, thousands of people contributing the code. Each contributes say, for arguments sake, 1/000th and gets well, the whole thing. Yes, a program can grow beyond its original author and then the authors contribution becomes rather miniscule in comparison, but if you think of giving and taking in terms of gain/loss then you will feel this is unfair. With the GPL you lose nothing by giving. In fact, you give something, and you are repaid a thousand fold.

Sorry, but I don't think we're talking on the same wavelength.

I'm talking about a software project that use bits of GPLed code here and there to increase reliability and save time, but in which the bulk of the code is *not* written under the GPL (or not intended to be).

You are talking about a collaborative GPL project where people work together to create some piece of GPLed software.

In the case of the former, it's quite possible - indeed, likely, IMHO - that the amount of GPLed code in the project is dwarfed by the amount of new, non-GPL code written by the developer(s). This is the scenario where the GPL could be unfair - potentially requiring the developer(s) to release *all* their code under the GPL - and hence effectively losing the ability to charge for it - despite the amount of GPLed code actually used in the product being (relatively) negligible.

To me this is potentially unfair. It's not as long as the relative "creativity" between the GPLed stuff and the new stuff remains around 1:1. But if/when the amount of "new work" starts to outweigh the amount of GPLed work, it becomes more and more unfair to the people developing the new work.

Re: Drill Sgt (IP: 12.177.68.---)
by drsmithy on Fri 14th Nov 2003 22:56 UTC

Personally I find this one hard to believe. The license is very clear in what is required. They should not have released things under the GPL if they did not want them to be GPL. By doing so they accepted the terms of that license, therefore making their side of the contract voluntary.

Yes, but isn't that the basis of their complaint - that their code *didn't* get GPLed with their consent, because they *didn't* voluntarily released it under the GPL ?

I don't follow every breaking story about this case, so maybe I've missed something important. However, this is my interpretation of the complaint - that somehow, some of SCO's code found its way into GPLed code *without* their knowledge or consent.

Archie Shill
by top speed on Fri 14th Nov 2003 23:37 UTC

No, the issue you're constantly referring to (in fact, your entire argument rests on that one e-mail Linus wrote) is specifically about patents. Furthermore, enforcement of copyright is the duty of the copyright holder. If proprietary code appears in GPL software, it's up to the original owner of the code to identify the code so that the maintainers can take it out. The very first reaction to the allegations that there was stolen code in Linux from Linus was "tell us what the code is, and we'll remove it ASAP - we don't want stolen code in our software any more than you do."

HAHAHAHA, you are so brainwashed by the free software zombies you don't even realize how foolish you sound!

Torvalds simply does not perform any check, nor does he have any legal assistance who checks, the true lineage and heritage of any code contributed to Linux. Ask him yourself, he's only clearly stated this position for years. As for their ridiculous claim they would love to remove what is likely stolen - it's a complete lie. They've been repeatedly told what is infringing on Unix IP - all of IBM's contributions that are found in Unix - yet not one bit of this has been removed.

No they don't. Re-read that EULA. You're not protected at all. Commercial companies do not protect their users against legal liability. Stop making this false statement.

My statement is exactly correct - commercial companies like M$ protect their users from liability of use. You Linux hounds of all people should understand this, since you are so quick to point out how many times M$ has been in court over IP issues since as a M$ user all this time I've not had to fork over one penny, simply because M$ is solely responsible for ownership and distribution of their products.

Again, a false statement. Tell me, when exactly did Linus look the other way when infringing Unix code was identified inside Linux? You must have a link to some credible news source, right?

Here's a link right to his very own e-mail where he is warned he is infringing on other's IP, but his response is to "hire a hit man" instead.

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl541224082d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=...

Actually, that's not true either. A great deal of OSS code is provided by corporations (such as IBM, HP, Sun, etc.) while some more is provided by other institutions such as universities, the OSDL, etc. In this particular case, IBM is accused of having provided stolen code. The thing is, IBM (like all the other companies named above) has lawyers. In fact, they have lots of lawyers. It's the job of some of these lawyers to make sure any code that is released under the GPL is clean.

No it's very true, since IBM wouldn't be lending their lawyers to Linux unless they were directly being sued, which they are. The lawyers at IBM, HP and Sun aren't available to help Torvalds whenever he needs it, like now. There may be some lawyers at OSDL he is going to use now, but they don't EVER do title searches on code heritage, which is the point.

Again, you display a lot of faith in the fact that SCO is telling the truth, ignoring any reasonable arguments thrown your way. Example: you ignored the fact that Novell, who should know a thing or two about the SysV codebase, bought SuSE Linux with total peace of mind, claiming that SCO's allegation are groundless.

LMAO!!! That doesn't prove anything, it's more likely <u>another</u> bonehead move by Novell, something they are incredibly famous for!

You also ignore the fact that SCO is trying to avoid giving out what's being asked of them during Discovery, despite the fact that this is greatly hurting their chance of prevailing in court, a decision that can only be explained by the fact that there is in fact NO infringing code.

You're falling for the wishes and hopes of Groklaw and IBM, when the truth is SCO has already submitted a huge list of files that include infringing IP. Until a judge rules this is insufficient, which they probably won't, it's all they need to do.

SCO has already lost.

Maybe in your dreams, but the fact is the cost of using Linux has risen exponentially the last few months. Red Hat already withdrew it's free version, and the second leading vendor gets bought out by a US company and is fixing to have a huge price tag as well. The reason is simple - got to start charging money to pay for the IP lawsuits, since the cost of the last kernel.org disto is zero. Red Hat tried to solicit donations to their legal fund first, but getting money from the Linux crowd is apparently no easy feat.

Re: Jud (IP: ---.uhc.com)
by drsmithy on Sat 15th Nov 2003 00:02 UTC

I suppose, in a manner of speaking. To be precise, it is customary these days for content creators to agree in their employment contracts to turn over some portion or all (usually all) of their bundle of rights under copyright law to their employers. OTOH, before copyright law, something analogous happened between artists and their patrons.

So, as I said, from a legal perspective, they are the content creators.

How much am I offered for this fine idea of a painting? Tough to make a living as an artist in your world.

It's tough to make a living as an artist in *this* world. Very, very few people "live" off their "art". I know more than enough budding painters and musicians to realise that.

You can sell your painting under the same rules as supply and demand everyone else sells their property - for as much as someone is willing to pay.

News flash - Paying people is an incentive. [...]

I never suggested otherwise.

However, you seemed to imply that the only incentive people have to create content is money. I was trying to point out the absurdity of that reasoning. Indeed, usually the people whose only incentive is money are creating the *worst* "art".

Incidentally, even if copyright didn't exist, content creators would still get paid for the content they create. Only it would be a lot harder for them to keep getting paid over and over and over again for the same, single bit of work.

Much like everyone else, really.

Do you have a job? If so, would you do the work you are doing if you weren't paid for it? Would you do it 40+ hours a week if you weren't paid for it? How would you survive if you weren't paid for it?

You are labouring under the premise that the only way artists get paid is by relying on copyright and that by removing copyright they would never be paid for their work. This is patently false.

For example, in the case of music artists, the vast majority of their income comes from performing live which, by definition, benefits little copyright because each performance is a new creative endeavour - a "once off". They effectively get paid at the time for their work and, generally, make little recurring income from that performance again.

I do work. I get paid for the work I do when I do it (or shortly thereafter). I don't have the luxury of doing a day's work and then continue getting paid for that day's work for the rest of my life, my children's lives and a fair chunk of my grandchildren's lives.

This is how "IP rights" have become massively biased towards content creators and why "intellectual property rights" have grown out of control. A good and/or lucky artist can now perform a few pieces of work and effectively live off them for the rest of their lives, because the "natural" laws of supply and demand are circumvented. The situation is completely arse-about-face, because with an effectively infinite supply, the value of ideas should be practically nil, yet they are much, much more valuable than physical property. A really good and/or popular idea will probably keep the lucky person(s) who thought of it on a steady income for the rest of their life (heck, even a relatively bad idea will probably provide the person who came up with it some income). A really good and/or popular piece of physical property will give the person(s) who made it a once-off income. This is despite the fact that ideas have an effectively infinite supply while physical property has a limited supply.

Imagine if mathematics had been copyrighted under the current US system, or English. Imagine having to pay royalties so you could be taught to add up some numbers or talk to people. That's how ridiculous current copyright law is. And the worst part is the US is imposing it's concepts of copyright on the rest of the world.

/rant

Now, having said all that, I do support the idea of a very basic and limited form of copyright. However, this whole concept of trying to equate physical and "intellectual" property is simply broken. The two are fundamentally different.

I like the products of creativity - art, books, music, computer programs - and feel the creators should be rewarded, both because they deserve it for having produced something beautiful, and to encourage them to do more of it.

As do I. I just think copyright is an almost completely a broken system, both in practice and concept.

drsmithy
by top speed on Sat 15th Nov 2003 00:24 UTC

"IP rights" have become massively biased towards content creators and why "intellectual property rights" have grown out of control. A good and/or lucky artist can now perform a few pieces of work and effectively live off them for the rest of their lives, because the "natural" laws of supply and demand are circumvented. The situation is completely arse-about-face, because with an effectively infinite supply, the value of ideas should be practically nil, yet they are much, much more valuable than physical property. A really good and/or popular idea will probably keep the lucky person(s) who thought of it on a steady income for the rest of their life (heck, even a relatively bad idea will probably provide the person who came up with it some income).

With all due respect, sounds like the plea of one incapable of invention themselves. You may argue, but you did refer to them as "lucky", hardly sufficent recognition of their individual accomplishment.

Imagine if mathematics had been copyrighted under the current US system, or English. Imagine having to pay royalties so you could be taught to add up some numbers or talk to people. That's how ridiculous current copyright law is. And the worst part is the US is imposing it's concepts of copyright on the rest of the world.

'Mathematics' is centuries old and no copyrights would still exist for most of it, so your supposed analogy is bogus. You can't compare age-old entities like that to modern miracles of technology, no more than you could expect those ancient mathmaticians to have put a man on the moon. The copyrights will eventually expire, and you can use the stuff for free then, but not now, you had nothing to do with it and therefore don't deserve the right. Same with your comment about the US - the US invented it, so rightly it is theirs to decide how it is managed, at least for a reasonable time frame. If you don't like it, invent something better yourself.

@SlowSpeed
by Archie Steel on Sat 15th Nov 2003 01:07 UTC

As for their ridiculous claim they would love to remove what is likely stolen - it's a complete lie. They've been repeatedly told what is infringing on Unix IP - all of IBM's contributions that are found in Unix - yet not one bit of this has been removed.

Another falsehood. Man, you never stop, do you? Please indicate to us all what IBM contributions to Linux are found in Unix. What files. Which lines. That is what IBM is asking, and that is what SCO is desperately trying not to provide. But the problem is that they're in court now, this is the discovery phase, and they have to provide that info.

Talk about brainwashed...

My statement is exactly correct - commercial companies like M$ protect their users from liability of use.

Prove it.

since you are so quick to point out how many times M$ has been in court over IP issues since as a M$ user all this time I've not had to fork over one penny

Well, there are two reasons for this: one, you cannot find a user guilty of copyright infringement. Copyright infringement requires the distribution of copyrighted material, not its use. So in fact as a Linux user I couldn't be found guilty of copyright infringement - the only people who could be held responsible are those who comitted the infringement and possibly those who distributed afterwards. This is something you'd realize if you had any legal knowledge at all.

The other reason is that MS has always decided to settle when found guilty.

Here's a link right to his very own e-mail where he is warned he is infringing on other's IP, but his response is to "hire a hit man" instead.

Stop reposting that link, it makes you sound unbalanced. The hit man comment was a joke, even an 8 year-old can understand that. You base your entire argument on a joke made in an e-mail. And then you wonder why no one on this thread takes you seriously, and that your posts get modded down...

That aside, you are completely wrong to post this link here since it does not involve Linus being informed of proprietary Unix code being found in Linux. This is what I asked you to provide, which you weren't able to do. Therefore, you lose.

No it's very true, since IBM wouldn't be lending their lawyers to Linux unless they were directly being sued, which they are.

Wrong again. Any code submitted by IBM to Linux is looked over by their lawyers.

The lawyers at IBM, HP and Sun aren't available to help Torvalds whenever he needs it, like now.

Uh, he's not being accused of anything, you know? They only subpoenaed him as a witness. And he's got legal aid supplied by the OSDL. BTW, here's who supports the OSDL, just before you think it's just a bunch of commie hackers:

Alcatel, Cisco, Computer Associates, Dell, Ericsson, Force Computers, Fujitsu, HP, Hitachi, IBM, Intel, Linuxcare, Miracle Linux Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric, MontaVista Software, NEC Corporation, Nokia, NTT Comware, NTT DATA INTELLILINK, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems, SUSE LINUX, TimeSys, Toshiba, Transmeta Corporation, Turbolinux, Ulticom, Unilever and VA Software.

LMAO!!! That doesn't prove anything, it's more likely <u>another</u> bonehead move by Novell, something they are incredibly famous for!

Yeah, right. I'm sure they didn't hire lawyers for this. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Have you forgotten that Novell still has some rights left over from the sale of UNIX to SCO? They know what they're doing.

You're falling for the wishes and hopes of Groklaw and IBM, when the truth is SCO has already submitted a huge list of files that include infringing IP.

This isn't what was asked of them. They were asked to identify the infringing code. They haven't identified it, they've said: "it's somewhere in there."

Oh, and again, you have ZERO legal credibility, and yet you're dismissing the work of a brillant legal secretary.

Well, the one bright spot is imagining your face when SCO gets thrown out of court (and to the wolves).

Until a judge rules this is insufficient, which they probably won't

Actually, it probably will. Judges don't like when parties to a trial use dilatory tactics and play these kinds of games.

it's all they need to do.

Nope. They got to identify the code so the jury can decide whether there was infringement or not, otherwise they will lose their case - and be eradicated from the face of the earth by IBM's counter-suit.

Feel free to continue with your legally-challenged, weakly-supported arguments - the thread has gone under the radar and frankly you're boring me by repeating the same tired lies.

Anyway, SCO has already lost.

Re: top speed (IP: ---.valp.net)
by drsmithy on Sat 15th Nov 2003 02:09 UTC

With all due respect, sounds like the plea of one incapable of invention themselves. You may argue, but you did refer to them as "lucky", hardly sufficent recognition of their individual accomplishment.

It's more like a plea for reason and fairness.

I never said everyone who has a good idea was lucky, either. I would suggest, however, that there's a fair swag of them - particularly amongst writers, painters and musicians - who have been disproportionately successful because they were lucky.

'Mathematics' is centuries old and no copyrights would still exist for most of it, so your supposed analogy is bogus.

Given the current trend to extending copyrights every time they are about to expire, saying mathematics - if invented today - would be out of copyright is somewhat questionable.

You can't compare age-old entities like that to modern miracles of technology, no more than you could expect those ancient mathmaticians to have put a man on the moon.

Of course you can. Back then, it *was* a "modern miracle".

The copyrights will eventually expire, and you can use the stuff for free then, but not now, you had nothing to do with it and therefore don't deserve the right.

Given recent events pertaining to copyright in the US, it's highly debatable whether or not current copyrights will ever expire without some fairly major governmental changes.

Regardless, they are already much, much longer than they need to be to be "reasonable".

"Reasonable" is perhaps making as much money off a book that took a year to write as someone on a high wage might make in a year.

"Reasonable" is wanting to at least break even with your return on investment.

"Reasonable" is *not* anything like the current system.

If you don't like it, invent something better yourself.

Trouble is, these days, doing that often gets you sued for patent infringement (although patents are a different issue to copyright).

Archie Wrong, like always
by top speed on Sat 15th Nov 2003 02:48 UTC

But the problem is that they're in court now, this is the discovery phase, and they have to provide that info.

SCO has named ~500 files that have Unix IP in Linux, whether you are aware of it or not.

So in fact as a Linux user I couldn't be found guilty of copyright infringement

LMAO, you are laugh a minute! Of course you can, especially if you gave a copy to anyone else to use.

Stop reposting that link...

Why, because it's so incriminating? Of course that's why, you don't want to have to face up to what you are supporting, and how wrong it is.

Wrong again. Any code submitted by IBM to Linux is looked over by their lawyers.

Well they aren't doing a very good job of vetting it then, are they. IBM let some of the same 'tainted' programmers that worked on Unix work on Linux, so they can hardly be trusted.

They only subpoenaed him as a witness.

Maybe but the truth is he's their #1 accomplice. Whether the judge fines him or not remains to be seen, but I doubt he will be able to continue to authorize duplication of software that hasn't been vetted for infringement.

Have you forgotten that Novell still has some rights left over from the sale of UNIX to SCO?

There's nothing to forget, they sold those rights in total and the people that worked at Novell at the time are willing to testify to it, not to mention the contracts and admendments that exist. If Novell could have stopped SCO any way at all they would have surely tried by now, but they haven't done anything other than question it one time publicly, which was later retracted.

This isn't what was asked of them. They were asked to identify the infringing code. They haven't identified it, they've said: "it's somewhere in there."

Asked by who, IBM? Who cares! The court hasn't asked for anything more despite IBM's crybaby whines about it. SCO has identified a huge list of files, which is sufficient to show the level of damages sought.

Actually, it probably will. Judges don't like when parties to a trial use dilatory tactics and play these kinds of games.

LMAO! FYI, judges are much more concerned about thieves running around stealing people's property and giving it away to infinite others for free. WAKE UP!

They got to identify the code so the jury can decide whether there was infringement or not, otherwise they will lose their case - and be eradicated from the face of the earth by IBM's counter-suit.

They have identified the files that duplicate 'methods and concepts' of Unix within Linux, and since the whole file is duplicating Unix technology the inner code is irrelevant. The court is I'm sure happy to not have to tons and tons of irrelevant printouts dumped on them.

Bottom line - which you always ignore - until the judge rules that SCO must respond to IBM's whines, that's all IBM is doing - whining.

drsmithy
by top speed on Sat 15th Nov 2003 03:00 UTC

saying mathematics - if invented today - would be out of copyright is somewhat questionable.

That's quite an 'if' to stick on there now. You said mathematics, I simply pointed out that math as we know it is far beyond copyright protected age.

Given recent events pertaining to copyright in the US, it's highly debatable whether or not current copyrights will ever expire without some fairly major governmental changes.

Copyrights definitely expire, I believe the standard term is "after one lifetime" or ~75 years, but I would love to be factually corrected.

Trouble is, these days, doing that often gets you sued for patent infringement

Possibly true, but that doesn't mean whoever thought of it first isn't more deserving of complete ownership.

@ScoSpeed
by Archie Steel on Sat 15th Nov 2003 03:24 UTC

SCO has named ~500 files that have Unix IP in Linux, whether you are aware of it or not.

Yeah, about a million pages. They say the code is somewhere in there. That's not sufficient. They have to indicate clearly what the infringing code is, period. They haven't done this.

LMAO, you are laugh a minute!

And you're a lie a minute.

Of course you can, especially if you gave a copy to anyone else to use.

If I didn't redistribute it, I can't be liable for copyright infringement. The infringement is in the act of distribution. Please read up on copyright law before to pretend to debate about it, you'll look less of a fool.

Why, because it's so incriminating?

It is not incriminating in any way. There is still something called freedom of speech, and that entails people to say what they want and make bad jokes if they want. The only reason I'm saying your should stop repeating it is that you're beginning to sound like a broken record.

Well they aren't doing a very good job of vetting it then, are they.

Why, do you have proof to the contrary? Oh, I forgot: you don't! All you do is repeat unproven allegations as if they were facts. But they're not: they're unproven allegations, false until proved right.

So until there is proof to the contrary, then, yes, they are doing a good job at vetting the code. At least you admit that you were wrong earlier when you said that no one looked over the code before it was submitted.

Maybe but the truth is he's their #1 accomplice. Whether the judge fines him or not remains to be seen

LMFAOROTFL!!! You really don't know ANYTHING about law, do you? Stop it, you're killing me! Yeah, a judge "fining a witness!"

You're priceless. Are you sure you're not working for SCO? Because you sound as clueless as them.

There's nothing to forget, they sold those rights in total

Nope. They kept the right to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify or waive any right under the license agreements.

From AlwaysOn:

"At IBM's request, Novell employed this right and demanded that SCO waive IBM's purported violations. When SCO did not do so, Novell exercised its right to waive the violations on SCO's behalf. Basically, this defense destroys the core of the SCO case: IBM's violation of its UNIX license with SCO."

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=1303_0_3_0_C

Asked by who, IBM? Who cares! The court hasn't asked for anything more despite IBM's crybaby whines about it. SCO has identified a huge list of files, which is sufficient to show the level of damages sought.

See, if you understood anything about the legal system (which you don't) you'd understand that the huge list of files doesn't prove any wrongdoing. They still have to identify the code. The jury's not going to say: "my, that's an awful lot of files - I guess they must be right!" Instead, they'll ask to see the proof that there's been copying. They'll want to see the code. The code must be shown during discovery. SCO is practically sabotaging their case by not providing what IBM is asking for.

The simple fact that they do not want to identify the code when this would help their case is an indication that they, in fact, have no case.

FYI, judges are much more concerned about thieves running around stealing people's property and giving it away to infinite others for free.

You mean, like what SCO is trying to do with the work of thousands of volunteers?

They have identified the files that duplicate 'methods and concepts' of Unix within Linux

That's not good enough. They need to identify the code.

and since the whole file is duplicating Unix technology the inner code is irrelevant.

LMAO! You are sooo wrong! The code is the only thing that is relevant - and that is what SCO said had been copied into Linux. "Methods and concepts" have nothing to do with it.

I know you're backtracking here because I've got you cornered, but you should just quit. This is really beginning to sound pathetic.

The court is I'm sure happy to not have to tons and tons of irrelevant printouts dumped on them.

Hello? Anybody in there? They do have tons and tons of irrelevant pritouts being dumped on them. A million pages! They don't want the entire files, they want to see the infringing code.

Bottom line - which you always ignore - until the judge rules that SCO must respond to IBM's whines, that's all IBM is doing - whining.

If SCO does not identify the code, the jury won't be able to tell whether there is infringing code or not, and the case will be thrown out.

In any case, SCO has already lost.

Hmm...who to trust...
by Archie Steel on Sat 15th Nov 2003 03:28 UTC

One one hand, PJ, a brillant paralegal who does research for a living, presents actual court documents and analyzes them objectively.

On the other hand, TopSpeed, an internet troll who presents unsubstantiated allegations as facts, repeats the same things over and over again like a broken record when proven wrong, and never provides any proof of his own.

Gee, tough choice...

BTW...
by Archie Steel on Sat 15th Nov 2003 03:31 UTC

Even Dan Lyons from Forbes, who until now had been sympathetic to SCO's cause, has finally figured out that they're just making this up as they go.

http://www.forbes.com/home/2003/11/13/cz_dl_1113sco.html

SCO's toast.

Further proof that SCO has nothing...
by Archie Steel on Sat 15th Nov 2003 03:35 UTC

From Groklaw

"SCO has announced its fourth quarter webcast and conference call. It's been moved up to Dec. 3 at 11 AM. It had earlier been announced for Dec. 8.

This couldn't have anything to do with the Motion to Compel Discovery oral arguments, now scheduled for Dec. 5, if SCO doesn't cough up some answers to IBM's interrogatories pretty soon, could it?
"

Meanwhile SCO's stock has lost 4% today and almost a $1.50 since monday morning.

Yup, SCO has lost. Guess you'll need to find employement somewhere else, TopSpeed...

Archie Shill
by Top Speed on Sat 15th Nov 2003 03:55 UTC

They say the code is somewhere in there. That's not sufficient.

Says who? IBM? Again, so what. This is only discovery, and the files have been identified. IBM can whine to the judge all they want, but he obviously isn't listening.

If I didn't redistribute it, I can't be liable for copyright infringement. The infringement is in the act of distribution. Please read up on copyright law before to pretend to debate about it, you'll look less of a fool.

Wrong again. If you're using an illegal copy given to you by someone else, you are liable to pay for your fair use. You sure are arrogant to be so ignorant.

It is not incriminating in any way.

It's a slam dunk that shows Torvalds ignored warnings of copyright infringement and advocated further crime. Believe me the judge won't find it funny in the least. Mormon judge, don't forget.

From AlwaysOn

Your link doesn't work, so if you have anything better you can try to post it.

They need to identify the code.

The code is within the files. Duh! This is nothing more than IBM whining, obvious to anyone other than their puppets.

"Methods and concepts" have nothing to do with it.

You obviously haven't seen the Sequent and Dynix contracts for Unix use.

If SCO does not identify the code, the jury won't be able to tell whether there is infringing code or not, and the case will be thrown out.

I see you're still clinging to that ridiculous hope you read on the internet somewhere. The files are plenty sufficient when Unix files have the same exact name and content, and the judge has not asked for anything additional. Only a blind deaf and dumb person wouldn't understand. I guess you qualify.

Tell Linus and Stallman they don't have to go to trial then
by Top Speed on Sat 15th Nov 2003 04:03 UTC

Yup, SCO has lost.

You should tell Linus Torvalds he's off the hook then. He can scratch all those depositions and court dates right off his calendar, right? He's just giving in if he shows his face at all right Archie?

Be sure he knows he's not still on trial, and can move freely all around the US without having to worry about any of this stuff anymore. I'm sure he'll be real thankful to know that he's off the hook now, and can ignore the court completely.

Whatever
by Archie Steel on Sat 15th Nov 2003 04:37 UTC

Says who? IBM?

No, says me. As an individual given reason. You should try it instead of just spinning. It'd be a refreshing change.

Again, so what. This is only discovery,

"Only" discovery. Sure. Whatever.

and the files have been identified.

The judge and the jury won't be interested by the files. They'll want to see the proof. What, you think David Boies will just stand up in court and say "Your honor! I've got an enveloped here that proves that the defendant is guilty!" (dramatic musical cue)

Why isn't SCO showing the code now?

IBM can whine to the judge all they want, but he obviously isn't listening.

The judge will listen to both IBM and SCO when they make their oral arguments for the motions to compel. He has listened to IBM and SCO so far, just like he'll keep on listening to both parties fairly. That's what judges do.

However, looking at his past judgment history, I'm not too worried. He'll be fair and reasonable, and thus SCO will lose its suit (and incidentally disappear from the face of the Earth).

Get to know judge Kimball:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=42&query=judge+woman

Your link doesn't work, so if you have anything better you can try to post it.

The link works fine. Problem's on your end, perhaps you should run Linux instead?

Wrong again. If you're using an illegal copy given to you by someone else, you are liable to pay for your fair use.

Nope. Check the law books.

The code is within the files. Duh!

Of course it is. But SCO will still have to identify it. They have to prove. They have to demonstrate. They can't just say "here are the files, trust us it's all the same (cause it ain't)"

Double duh.

You obviously haven't seen the Sequent and Dynix contracts for Unix use.

We've already covered this before, and you lost on that argument as well. Sure. Sequent and Dynix. Whatever.

I see you're still clinging to that ridiculous hope you read on the internet somewhere.

Aw, come on. Now you're just delusional. Yeah. I read it on the Internet. Whatever. (Yawn)

The files are plenty sufficient when Unix files have the same exact name and content,

Ok, so not only don't you know anything about law or psychology (which we know from your first wave of trolling on OSNews), it's clear that you don't know anything about Unix as well. You just can't takes Unix files and stick them in the Linux kernel! You really think you can just cut and paste between the two? Well you can't.

and the judge has not asked for anything additional.

The parties have. That's discovery. Why am I still bothering talking to someone who's doesn't even know what he's arguing about.

Only a blind deaf and dumb person wouldn't understand. I guess you qualify.

Sure but I'm a mean typer.

Sure.

Whatever.

You know you won't be able to convince me that you're right, and I know that you won't be able to convince anyone else. So keep on, I'm moving to more recent topics, where people still care.

I guess you'll crawl out again for the next SCO story...I've got better things to do of my friday night.

Ciao

This bickering is really pointless
by Genesis Effect on Sat 15th Nov 2003 07:16 UTC

If SCO wins, the offending code will be replaced and life will go on. This is a trivial case that, like so many, has been blown up by the media into something earthshaking.

---.valp.net
by Archie Steel on Sat 15th Nov 2003 21:07 UTC

Hey, TopSpeed, it looks like you may have to switch ISP, since valp.net is running on Linux...