Listen, and you can hear the collective sigh of relief as news comes that IBM has finally countersued The SCO Group. No real news on the details yet. Stay tuned for updates. Update: Lycoris has announced that its Desktop/LX distribution is “immune” from the recent moves by The SCO Group to force Linux users to license its intellectual property. For those who have used Lycoris, the installer comes right out of Caldera’s Linux installation code.
IBM Countersues SCO
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
it was only a matter of time, right?
i wonder if this will be the farce that the MS trial was.
Go IBM, go !
it will be fun to read the thing. (just as red hat’s complaint was more fun to read than sco’s press)
Nice to see lots of time to trial… I think this is pretty good. No one really knows the truth and Linux might very well be illegal… if not the kernel, who knows what, it’s just a bunch of code from here and there. Red Hat might be suable.
The important thing in this, who would be stupid enough to deploy linux servers now when it’s so unstable what will happen??? I think most people will look for BSD and Sun just to be sure that something unplanned doesn’t happen. That is probably a very good investment… my company has already moved in the direction since that started.
We also got surprised… BSD works better for our hosting services than Linux ever did… I guess you could say, all this bad things SCO our doing, made us do some really good decisions about our future platform choice.
Hate you SCO for being so stupid, love you SCO for making us try something new and see that the option to Linux suits us better.
IBM took time because they actually took the time to be ready
Can’t we as users just sue them for releasing Caldera Linux under the GPL in a class action lawsuit?
People have wondered what took IBM so long to do this. Well, IBM doesn’t jump into things without surveying the situation thoroughly. Now it is time for IBM to open a huge can of whoop ass.
SCO, your days are numbered. You better get your money now from the inflated stock and head for the hills. I wish I could say “it was nice knowing you” but it really wasn’t….
There is slightly more detail at http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5060965.html including that IBM has sued for Four Patent Violations.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel…and its color is deep blue.
This is why you don’t sue the company with the world’s largest patent portfolio. IBM is seeking an injunction to prevent SCO from shipping any software as they claim SCO software infringes on at least four IBM patents.
“xBSD is just as suspect of the allegations SCO has made against Linux.”
Actually, it’s not. BSD vs AT&T settled over 15 years ago. They are exempt from the SCO claims. Please do your homework.
That this was going to happen, and I bet IBM will be more than happy to give examples, something SCO has been unable to do thus far with its own claims. What surprises me is SuSE’s play in this. SuSE owns several patents and the base of UnitedLinux is SuSE Linux, why hasnt SuSE enforced any of its patents and copyrights.
The important thing in this, who would be stupid enough to deploy linux servers now when it’s so unstable what will happen???
If that is your definition of stupid, I’m stupid many times over. We have several Linux servers going in in the coming months. I am not scared of SCO.
If SCO had any real proof, they would have pushed for a trial as soon as possible to start making money. The trial date isn’t until 2005. They are stalling trying to extort money from users before the trial has even taken place. They want to scare people to license their product. Nothing more. I am calling their bluff. Until they show proof to the public, I’ll keep deploying linux.
“Actually, it’s not. BSD vs AT&T settled over 15 years ago. They are exempt from the SCO claims. Please do your homework”
What does a settlement 15 years ago have to do with SCO’s claims? If BSD is exempt from the claims and has the code in question present then ALL OS’s are exempt from the claims as BSD’s source is completely open. If BSD at the time contained the code in question then it could have simply been copied into Linux or any other OS from BSD without recourse from anyone. Otherwise the Code in question was not part of the AT&T vs BSD Settlement and if the code now exists in BSD they are indeed just as suspect as Linux.
Sometimes doing your homework is not enough, you also have to think about what the homework means and try to understand it.
I was wondering what they were waiting for. I like the strategy-attack SCO on the GPL release of their version of Linux, which released the disputed code into the wild.
IBM is sitting on a huge portfolio of patents, it’s about time they try to enforce them.I love the idea of seeking an injunction preventing SCO from selling their products. Ruthless.
I’m guessing that IBM took a close look at SCO’s financials, and decided to see if they could bleed them out before the trial.
Strange to think of IBM as the champion of the GPL, but IBM is taking up the cause in a big way. This is a big step, since the GPL hasn’t been tested in court yet.
Should be an interesting ride.
Zaphrod please listen to Teknoenie and just do your homework! We are talking about history here, not philosophy. Berkley had a fight with AT&T and they won the right to deploy their own OS which was pretty much changed from AT&T’s UNIX. Linux is something like a bastard OS (I will have to agree with Balmer on this), and there is a big possibility for SCO to find a license “flaw”.
….so do your homework and off to bed now!!!
“IBM said that four SCO software packages violate four of IBM’s patents. The patents cover a data compression technique, a method of navigating among program menus using options arranged in a graphical tree, a method for verifying that an electronic message was received and a method for monitoring computing systems linked in a cluster.”
yes, sco, this is how a mk77 firebomb up the royal hiney ;D
If SCO thought they could annoy IBM up to the point where the elephant buys the mosquito to stop the stings… wrong bet
And here’s the best news: as soon as this news broke, SCO’s shares began dropping. It’s already down, as of right now, over 11%!! haha
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=t
“This is why you don’t sue the company with the world’s largest patent portfolio. IBM is seeking an injunction to prevent SCO from shipping any software as they claim SCO software infringes on at least four IBM patents.”
Is this true? How do you know? If its true then you just made my
Both Red Hat and IBM strike back in the same week… I’d love to know if they’ve been talking and planned this one-two punch. If so, that’s awesome. Well, even if not, it’s STILL awesome!
If the closest time to anyone hearing this SCO vs. the World in court is 2 years away, why steer your company away from Linux now? Even in a worst case scenerio where SCO is right (urgh) and Linux as a whole has to fold up the tent and go home, where does that leave you? Implemeting new software, including your NOS, is an ongoing battle. Who knows what will be available in 2 years? And even IF you can’t get new verions of Linux after the trail, so what? You make the move to BSD, Sun, or even Microsft it costs big bucks right now. Hold off for the time being unless you were going to change anyway. No one knows what will happen, and I for one will not encourage the “sky is falling” approach in my company or to my clients.
Linux will survive this. Have a back up plan, but don’t count on SCO winning this one. How would you feel in a few years when this all blows over and you changed you/a company away from a very respectable product for no reason? Bottom line is that changing your OS now or in 2 years is (on the average) going to cost the same.
note: We run Novell, Windows, and Linux and I am happy with all of them. I am not advocating the widespread implementation of Linux. Use what works. And btw, I have 3 clients still running Netware 3.11. Novell could close up shop and disappear from the face of the planet and these guys wouldn’t bat an eye. Not everyone and everything HAS to be bleeding edge, or even still manufacturer supported.
Buy puts, sell calls — get rich!
Look at how much higher SCO price is compared to when the whole lawsuit issue come to bear in the Spring. The stock price is 12-15 times what it was before the debacle. It can’t get any lower than the pre-lawsuit days since it bottomed out at $0.72 and a company is delisted if it stays below $1.00 for a period of time (90 days or something like that?)
I like the tact IBM is taking. Without being presented with the infringing code, IBM is able to claim that it is irrelavant since SCO released the identical code under their own Linux distribution. Likewise they are seeking to shut down all of their sales (an idea I had from the beginning). To top it off, they are countersuing on lost revenues from their “AIX license revocation” claiming the terms of their UNIX contract specifically denies SCO the right to revoke IBM’s license. Lastly, for icing on the cake, they are suing for patent infringement on unrelated products that SCO also produces. I love it. Can someone shoot down Canopy Group altogether now, please?
“Jump up and down all you want, IBM seems to be pinning all their hopes on the GPL being allowed to confiscate SCO’s IP, even if the SCO didn’t know their code was in there to begin with. ”
Heh? You extrapolated your own expectation from what they said – or actually from what they didn’t say. This is the initial argument from IBM, and that’s not exactly all that they stated. Don’t forget that IBM probably hasn’t seen the exact details of code that SCO feels is stolen, so why would they deny a broad sweeping charge without seeing specific particular evidence, first. They’re fighting this on the same broad front on which SCO has attacked them, and they are pushing the burden of proof back to the accuser, which is where it has always belonged.
Beyond that, let’s just pretend that SCO is totally free of issues of code theft themselves, and that IBM has pilfered their code into the Linux kernel. Several points remain: there are no “trade secrets” here, since you can go buy a book in Barnes and Noble that contains SysVR4 code in it. SCO has owned this codebase now for many years and they’re only now asserting this trade secret BS. One of the stipulations of having a trade secret is that you make reasonable efforts to maintain it. I don’t think SCO has done that here. If the GPL argument is anything, it is stating that SCO took this freely available codebase and without auditing it properly, started distributing and modifying it with it’s own name on it. Now after years of distribution, they’re going to try to say “we didn’t know what we were selling” and “we had no clue there was our own code in there placed there by IBM” – even when their own Caldera staff were contributing to the kernel hand in hand with IBM at the alleged time of infraction? I think that’s a very very shakey premise.
SCO’s reaction to this whole situation is to assume that their few lines of code equals the right to denounce the GPL in it’s entirety and sell binary licenses to end users? End users were NEVER guilty of a copyright infraction and don’t need indemnification(which is why it’s not being offered by the way) – the distributers and the thief( IBM is the alleged IP thief here ) are liable – not end users. So SCO is positively engaging in fraudulant claims and extortionist behavior. Measure in the stock dumping and the outrageous unsupported claims they’ve been making, and there’s probably a stock manipulation/insider trading scandel in there, as well.
To presume that the GPL is some thread that IBM is desperately clinging to is extremely wishful thinking. The only thing I fear is that the US courts are actually dumb enough to believe some of the crap that SCO is peddling. They’ve demonstrated themselves as technically inept and rendered bad verdicts and/or penalities before. That is the true cause for concern in my eyes. The other issue at stake is that SCO cannot begin to make up for the damage in reputation they are causing open source software, which so far as I can tell has done nothing wrong. SCO’s not proven that OSS has stolen code in it, and if it does in this case, it looks like IBM( a proprietary company that got their mittens on an OSS project ) would have been the ones to soil it – not the OSS movement themselves.
I for one think RH and IBM suits are just the beginning. SCO went thwacked the hornets nest with their FUD club and is just waiting to gets its <explicative> handed to it. I wouldnt be suprised in the least if we start hearing/seeing more from SuSE and Novell. It would be nice if HP had the stones to get involved too.
This is the most amusing part of IBM’s filing. They want to block SCO’s software sales? How much software is SCO selling, anyway? When SCO was dependent upon selling software their numbers were hilarious. They made something like $13M gross in software sales, for a Net loss of $2M. Their only real money came from lucrative contracts from Sun and Microsoft. Hmmm… hey wait a minute… who stands to gain the most if they can somehow invalidate the GPL and or nip OSS in the bud before their own proprietary products start falling off even more?
who stands to gain the most if they can somehow invalidate the GPL and or nip OSS in the bud before their own proprietary products start falling off even more?
<sarcasm>Stop that crazy talk. Microsoft would never do anything so duplicitous.</sarcasm>
BSD vs AT&T settled over 15 years ago. They are exempt from the SCO claims.
So, a settlement 15 years ago makes it impossible for anyone to put wrong code to some of the BSD versions ever again? No. Theoretically it could be as possible with BSD as with Linux (& practically as unlikely).
Besides – when doing their FUD spreading campaign, SCO did hint that many other OS’s might illegally contain their code too. Didn’t they even mention the BSD’s too if I remember right? But, of course, that has just been part of their FUD campaign. And it’s really Linux that they are after.
I don’t understand the “if you use Linux you’ll pay” mentality from SCO. Not a single Linux user is using code that they know is in violation of any legal contract. They have a good faith agreement with the Linux vendor they are working with. If SCO were to be proven correct, and the version of Linux did have illegal code, then they would have to convert to a version of Linux without that code or switch OS’s. They cannot be fined at all for using software which they purchased in good faith.
As an example, let’s say that you bought Microsoft Office for your company from the local computer store down the street when you bought your system. You bought all of that in good faith. If it turns out they sold you bootlegs, the most you would be forced to do is buy the software a second time. Microsoft couldn’t sue you for buying something that you bought with faith in the legality of the purchase.
Nah….thats just too far out there man. I seriously doubt it could ever come to that. But, lets go with your point for a moment and assume SCO will not only survive being sued by several companies (yes, there will be more most likely), but also prevail in all of those suits beginning with IBM. Thats a monumental task they have there……but, assuming they succeed in all of that, do you honestly think everyone will just through up there hands and say oh darn and start paying SCO or ripping Linux out? Puuullleez. No, if SCO suceeded in all of their legal battles, which is doubtful, they will probably get bought out faster than you can say blueberry pancakes. Just my opinion. 🙂
They weren’t aware, but have been on notice for a while, corporate users I mean, who are the only ones SCO is threatening, and many of whom got official notification.
So does that mean Coke could send out a letter to all Pepsi distributors with the insinuation that Pepsi may be using part of their secret forumla? They need more than their own opinion on the matter. After they have legally proven the violation, then those who are using the software in violation will have issues, but not until then.
are they going to pay your liability back to SCO for you.
Your liability is zero, so there is nothing to worry about.
SCO realizes that, and is only requesting restitution from business that have thousands of copies out on their network or configured in clusters, or who distributed it as a Linux vendor.
Would that include those who originally purchased Linux licenses from SCO as well?
Your liability is zero, so there is nothing to worry about.
Actually, not true if you are running it on a business network, and got a letter from SCO, and their accusations turn out to be true. Once on notice, you are liable.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-1020296.html
“No, it’s actually obviously what’s going on since this is their only defense to the actual allegations of theft. Period. Yes they may argue SCO is violating IBM patents now, which may or may not be true, but those damages would be separate, and in no way take away from the $3 Billion in damages SCO claims. You notice that IBM didn’t even release the value of their countersuit didn’t you? Only because it’s paltry in comparison. ”
This is just nonsense top speed. Of course its their only defense. What other defense could they possibly have (at the moment) when SCO is just spewing completely unsupported allegations. Nobody really has a good idea whats going to happen until SCO is forced to start putting facts and proof where the FUD is. There will also be a great deal of offense and defense regarding “derivative work” GPL is a very important part to the this case, but its only one of many.
They cannot be fined at all for using software which they purchased in good faith.
Exactly.
Also I somehow cannot believe that SCO is just after that licensing money (or stock money etc.). That would be a stupid business plan – though, well, maybe possible if they were desperate enough… But still they could even be blamed for extortion when they sell people just thin air without still showing real proof that there really is some SCO code in Linux.
Though conspiracy theories are mostly stupid, facts like SCO still not specifying what code they are talking about, big words & talks, ridiculously high license fees (to end users! & not showing them what they are supposed to buy!) etc. all work just to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt against Linux.
It all makes me think that this is really part of a big campaign against Linux (and maybe against OSS in general and GPL in particular), trying to stop companies and people from moving to Linux.
No, not the same, when people download Linux from kernel.org, they are accepting ownership of the product verses a license to ‘use’ the software, without ownership, which removes your personal liability.
Last time I checked you established a right to “use” software, you never own software as an end user. At best you own the right to use it. Nevertheless, it’s a moot point. The fact is, SCO does not have carte blanche to dictate whatever it feels is legal or illegal code. Therefore, being placed on notice by SCO is not being made aware that they are using illegal code. It is being made aware that they may be using illegal code. It would be prudent for companies to come up with a plan for the possible case where SCO wins, however SCO can extract zero from an end user unless they knowlingly bought/acquired the illegal software after a decision has been brought down. If the company continues using the software after the decision, then they will may be held liable, after a given transition time. They cannot be held liable for the usage from any time before that.
We also got surprised… BSD works better for our hosting services than Linux ever did… I guess you could say, all this bad things SCO our doing, made us do some really good decisions about our future platform choice.
Where to start with this. It sounds like story-troll, made up BSD booster. If the people at your company needed SCO to show them the way to BSD, they have bigger problems than lawsuits.
As for the IBM news… Yes it’s good. BUT. I don’t think we ought to get to psyched up about IBM as the new hero. Sure, many of us have a lot to gain from IBM winning this. But look at how they are doing that…
As Zaphrod posted…
more detail at http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5060965.html including that IBM has sued for Four Patent Violations.
This intellectual property / patent garbage is why we are in this situation in the first place! By using patent law in return, it only makes it legimate in the eyes of the court. The next patent ruling based on this precedent may not be so friendly.
-bogey
Last time I checked you established a right to “use” software, you never own software as an end user.
Well I suggest checking into it further then. Linux GPL gives you the right to distribute, i.e. copy, meaning you have effective ownership of IP. There are some other obigations to GPL, but you are still the owner if you “sign below” as they say.
IBM still refuses to deny they put Unix code in Linux, or that it doesn’t constitute ‘derivative’ work
Derivative works belong to IBM, as stated in the side letter to their contract with SCO.
IBM seems to be pinning all their hopes on the GPL being allowed to confiscate SCO’s IP, even if the SCO didn’t know their code was in there to begin with.
How many times will you repeat this false statement? It doesn’t matter if SCO didn’t know their code was in there to begin with (if it turns out to be true). What matters is that, when they found out that the code was there (again, if it really is), they kept on distributing it under the GPL. They can no longer claim that they didn’t know it’s there – they have willfully and knowingly distributed the code under the GPL.
And now, in addition to not having a case, they might be infringing up to four patents! Since you were so quick to jump on the SCO bandwagon, even without proof, and called Linux user thieves, will you now follow the same logic and call SCO thieves? After all, it seems they infringed on IBM’s IP…
Well I suggest checking into it further then. Linux GPL gives you the right to distribute, i.e. copy, meaning you have effective ownership of IP. There are some other obigations to GPL, but you are still the owner if you “sign below” as they say.
Read it again, everyone owns it. You do not pick up any IP rights at all:
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.
In fact, you are waving your OWN IP rights when you contribute anything to it.
Actually, not true if you are running it on a business network, and got a letter from SCO, and their accusations turn out to be true. Once on notice, you are liable.
Who cares? SCO, once noticed that there was improper code in Linux, continued to distribute it under the GPL. Ergo, any improper code (if any) has now been GPL’ed and there’s nothing SCO can do about it.
They can’t claim that customers are liable and in the same breath say they are not liable because they didn’t voluntarily put the code in there!
The code has been distributed under the GPL by SCO, knowingly and willfully. They sabotaged their own chances at winning – and now they are going to be reduced to dust by IBM + the Linux vendors.
“Linux GPL gives you the right to distribute, i.e. copy, meaning you have effective ownership of IP. ”
What a stretch in logic. So if the author of a book gives a distribution house permission to copy and distribute his book however they feel fit that automatically implies the distribution house is the legal owner of the contents (ie: IP) of the book???
Haven’t looked into them yet, but if SCO infringed, especially knowingly, they should pay. But IBM didn’t evoen announce a value for the patents when making this claim, probably as they are so basic and in use by everyone in the entire business, if I had to guess. Certainly no where even approaching $1 Billion, much less $3 Billion.
The difference, of course, being that IBM probably has a case, while SCO has none.
Listen to Top Speed: First he says:
>>
IF SCO wins, .. you could be required to fork over a lot of money, money you probably aren’t budgeted for.
>>
And then again he says:
>>
There’s millions of lines of code to Linux, SCO had no way of knowing if small parts of it were their code since they claim they did not put it there themself.
>>
There are millions of lines of code, SCO has no way of knowing what they are selling, and on account of this they are excused???? That’s your arugement???? And then the ordinary user who, in your eyes, must have million ways of knowing what’s in the code, is suing for making the same good-faith mistake? Listen to yourself, man, you are sounding less and less credible everyday.
Another question, to SCO (in any of their previous names as well) contribute to the kernel code at all? If so, their “I didn’t know” argument is even more bogus. They had their hands up the kernels arse the whole time in that case, and they would therefore know what code is being added/removed. Anyone have that info off the top of their heads?
As long as SCO doesn’t show what they are selling, they act just like the worst criminals: they ask protection money from you so that they don’t have to hurt you.
Before people know what they are buying, they should, and probably will, not give SCO any protection money. But many persons and companies might now reconsider their Linux plans, at least to some extent, maybe they seem it better not to move to Linux just yet, wait a few years still etc. Because of the FUD now surrounding Linux. And that really seems to be the goal of SCO and their supporters too.
>>IBM still refuses to deny they put Unix code in Linux, or that it doesn’t constitute ‘derivative’ work <<
No one is denying that SCO-Unix code and Linux code overlap, why? because SCO used a lot of the BSD code in their UNIX and so did Linux. So it is a well known fact that there are chunks of code that are the same.
Also, as repeatedly stated on this Forum, SCO (and formerly Caldera) has contributed together with IBM to Linux under the GPL for years. This is no secret and well documented.
SysV code you can hardly call a trade secret, it is used in the universities around the world.
Now, seeing that you are so concerned about ‘justice’ – you obviously think it is all right to make allegations without backing them up, potentially damaging the reputation and business of other companies by doing so, then charging extortionous fees for the os that has been developed (yes they have contributed, but not as much as others) by developers around the world.
strange sense of justice
I’m confused about one thing – if Lycoris has such a license, then doesn’t said license extend them all of the IP rights necessary to distribute Lycoris under the GPL? And if so, then isn’t the whole case over with?
I know you’re a troll but I’ll still rebutt your points, in case the clueless Windows users here believe you.
First of all why are you so against free software? Why does it bother you that countless volunteers are writing code in their spare time while all you do is post in these forums? If you don’t like the idea that anyone should be able to improve what’s running on their computer, just keep bying commercial software as always. No-one’s trying to destroy commercial software, they’re just giving it some much-needed competition.
Also if SCO had pulled their copy of the kernel from their FTP site the day they filed their lawsuit, they’d probably have more of a case than they do now, where they continue to distribute code that they claim is a trade secret.
Also some people make the claim that SCO didn’t know their code was in Linux, that’s why their distributed it. Well, excuse me, but NUMA, RCU and JFS were touted as some of the major new features in kernel 2.4. Check any changelog, etc, and you will find a lot about these three. How could SCO not know about this? I don’t expect them to read every line of kernel source, but at least they could read the change logs?
Has anyone considered the possibility that UnixWare and OpenServer just plain suck, compared to their commerical and free counterparts? If Linux didn’t exist, SCO would be suing BSD or Solaris x86.
@top_speed:
…who is taking code and RE-licensing without even checking for possible infringement even when warned by other programmers they likely were infringing. SCO is not liable for ANY diligence since Torvalds obviously provided none, and he willingly admits he makes no effort to check “on principle”.
If you had recently talked to a laywer at all recently, you’d know that as a programmer it’s a very bad idea to lookup patents to see if you’re infringing on them. Doing so can actually cause you to be liable or lose your case in court if it comes up in court later. You have to take the word of the person who gave it to you that it’s not infringing any patented technology. So your argument holds little validity.
The ones that say they will never pay SCO even if it is proven beyond doubt in a court of law that Linux stole from Unix are certainly the worst.
Why would I pay SCO when they have released their IP under the GPL (and therefore made the whole point moot)? I make it a point of supporting Linux distros when I feel that they deserve it. SCO has done nothing to deserve my money. On the contrary, they have antagonized Linux users everywhere by likening them to pirates. They deserved to be flattened by IBM and the Linux distro makers, and for that I am ready to contribute financially.
I can’t believe I agree with him, but TS may have something here. There is a bit or “an-enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend” going on here. IBM isn’t doing this (necessarily) altruistically-they have billions at stake.
That said, they have had a huge hand in legitimizing F/OSS software and systems, backing the “commons” with their money and reputation. Do they stand to gain? Sure. Does Linux stand to gain? Sure, as long as you aren’t some Debian-got-to-be-free-at-all-times-zealot. Right now, all I see is positives.
Strategically, the patents are so general, it could be applied to just about everything: windows, linux, BSD, BeOS, you name it. They are getting out the bazooka to swat a fly-but suppose that the GPL argument doesn’t stick, and this one does: what does that say for the IT industry? What software doesn’t use some form of “menu navigation”? That could have a chilling effect as well.
Of course, IBM has never sought to enforce these patents, so far as I know, although their actual value probably exceeds that of SCO’s suite against them. Curiouser and curiouser.
>> It’s called ‘due diligence’ .. SCO has much less required due diligence than Torvalds .. SCO is not liable for ANY diligence
>>
I still don’t get your logic. If SCO, an OS seller, is NOT liable for ANY diligence, how do you end up with the conclusion that the end user of the OS is liable?? Frankly, your arguments might be a bit more convincing if they weren’t so obviously SCO-slanted.
Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me Lycoris is a home user oriented distro. Their targeted customers are not businesses. Therefore, do they believe home users are scared that SCO will sue them ? If not, it wasn’t a good move to come and say : “We still hope SCO will have a chat with other distro makers but for the moment you’re better off with Lycoris only”. That sounds like the argument McNealy is making right now, to the dismay of those who thought a company such as Sun would never lower themselves to that level.
If you had recently talked to a laywer at all recently, you’d know that as a programmer it’s a very bad idea to lookup patents to see if you’re infringing on them.
I don’t deny that, but that is simply evidence that their development model is fatally flawed by it’s very concept. There needs to be major rework of their contribution process, how not only code but codERS are vetted, and IBM or SCO is probably going to have to manage it, somebody that has some liability for it to work in a modern business society.
>> Torvalds wouldn’t ask for any money from them if they chose Linux. IBM wants its cake and to eat it too.
>>
Actually, Open Source = collaboration. The good thing about open source and linux in particular is that it offers many corporations the oppourtunity to work together, instead of re-inventing the wheel all the time. SUN, IBM, HP, Novell, and thousands of people all over the world can actually work together and promote the good of the overall industry. I really communists like you don’t like that sort of thing, but the world of science got where it is because, scientists collaborate, share ideas, work with their peers.
Why support open source in games and edutainment but not in other environments? What’s wrong with having an open source OS? If you don’t like it, don’t use it.
However unlike most other ‘free software’ pirates that refuse to even admit they would pay SCO even if proven in court they were right, he is willing to do that and distance himself from those that aren’t. Therefore, we have each other’s respect, although certainly not absolute agreement in all aspects.
Well let me speak for myself right now and say that if the courts find the current Linux kernel contains illegal code in it, I will stop using Linux until a legal version of the kernel is distributed. As a programmer I am very conscious of people’s IP. I’m also conscious of the idea that corporations can be pursuing legal action for no other reason than economic ones. For me, worse case scenario, I’ll have my system down for a month. If I had a mission critical application, I’d go get FreeBSD and the Linux w/ the Linux runtime functionality installed and get a backup system tested for that month. Worse case scenario I would personally be out any potential re-licensing fees, just as anyone else.
I’m no open source zealot who finds it to be a major sin for people to charge for their software. I do however find it a major sin for a company to use unsubstatiated predatory litigation as a business model.
Top speed, this might come as a surprise to you but open source has been around for far longer than commercial software. Back in the day, most computer operating systems and software came with full source listings, and patches would be sent in source form. It wasn’t until the 80’s that commercial software with closed source code, tightly guarded IP, etc. So maybe the commercial paradigm is the one that is fatally flawed, since it has been demonstrated that open source can produce superior alternatives.
After those last years (DOJ vs. MS case and now this stupid SCO case…) I guess there should be some specific discussion about the US legal system. I used to believe its stregths were the key for the success of US as a country (not to discuss other positive factors and some negative like its prectices with weaker countries that most US citizens didn’t ever hear) but the recent changes on it that are turning to be more and more apparent, and not only with respect to tech companies (last presidential election and some others), are leting me worried. Why it simply did not request SCO to show something before starting this joke, as the German system did?
They seem not to care that 2+ years is A LOT of time for people and companies involved in an issue that NOBODY knows if is just a bluff!!!
And this guy Bush wants to force us in Latin America to join this America’s Free Trade Area and sign in to be liable according to the American regulations???
“That is simply evidence that their development model is fatally flawed by it’s very concept.”
On the contrary, the openness of the Linux code is the greatest insurance against that kind of thing.
But never mind. Would you please care to tell OSNEWS readers what steps proprietary companies take to ensure that there is no code infringement in their product?? Can you tell us how Microsoft, for example, ensures that there WordPerfect code in Office, or how Oracle ensures there is no MS SQL code in their Oracle??
So has Lycoris bought that SCO license? (sorry, not aware)
Well, the fact that there are dozens of distros, most of them free, makes competition difficult for commercial distributors. Lycoris might have just thought that if nobody else pays the license now, it might actually be a smart move and a small price to pay for a potential marketing benefit, and to prevent the FUD disturbing their customers so much.
>> Yes, SCO is liable as OS seller, but since they never authorized the kernel contributions, they had no indications that the code might exist there.
>>
And SCO’s “ignorance” of the existence of infringing code legally excuses them. But the same ignorance doesn’t excuse end users?????
Be that as it may, it what you are saying sounds funny at the very least, because all the linux distros out there ship CUSTOM kernels. Redhat, for example. If SCO is going to distribute the OS, you would think they would at least know the kernel contains. According to you, they didn’t know even that much, and you still feel they’ve done enough work to collect royalties from Linux users! How nice!
unlike most other ‘free software’ pirates that refuse to even admit they would pay SCO even if proven in court they were right
So now, those who refuse to pay SCO for a product released under the GPL are “pirates,” even though they never actually downloaded for SCO? And that SCO has it available on its PUBLIC FTP SITE?
I personally would recommend being VERY careful with dealing wih SCO’s website or dare even downloading executables from there.
You still don’t understand what a public FTP site is, don’t you… If it doesn’t require a login and password to download, and it’s placed on http://ftp.sco.com/pub, it means it is freely downloadable! Even your dear Coral Snake has agreed to this.
SCO has freely distributed the Linux kernel under the GPL. They continue to do so on their public FTP site, and are doing so knowingly and willfully. They can’t impose another license on it, or place restricitions on its distribution other than those already present in the GPL. They don’t have a case – end of story!
But right now my operating system requirements insist on high security, something I’m not comfortable with source open software.
First of all this has been disproven time and time again, look at OpenBSD and compare with countless Outlook virii, etc.
And once again, if you prefer Windows XP or whatever then go ahead and use it. There is no need to wish Linux to get sued out of existence, just because you prefer another OS…
Yes, SCO is liable as OS seller, but since they never authorized the kernel contributions, they had no indications that the code might exist there.
And yet at some point they did find out that the code was there (if they’re indeed telling the truth). And what did they do? They kept on distributing it anyway. Therefore, the whole point about the code being incorporated into the kernel without their authorization (if true – examples such as Christoph Hellwig’s seem to point that the contributions were in fact authorized) has been rendered moot by their decision to continue distributing kernel.
The fact that they kept on distributing the kernel means that any code they might have had in there is now GPL’ed. They don’t have a case.
the openness of the Linux code is the greatest insurance against that kind of thing.
Again, your argument equates to “we leave our stolen cars in the front yard for you cops to find, so you should just let us keep doing it” but WITHOUT doing anything to correct the root of the problem.
Can you tell us how Microsoft, for example, ensures that there WordPerfect code in Office, or how Oracle ensures there is no MS SQL code in their Oracle??
Well, in many cases, they use what is known as cross-licensing (which is what IBM seems to be attempting to revoke, surprised they really only had 4 patents along these lines) but Linux cannot cross-license anything. Beyond that, large software companies can also accept liability if they are caught doing something like this. For example, I never got a bill for using MS DOS drivespace (which could have been stolen from Stacker), did you?
I have a great desire and need for open source games, especially something like a high speed race car game for a console that can go online and race against each other. There is NOTHING like that being provided by ‘the community’.
Even if the “community” wanted to provide this, it couldn’t. To make a console game you need the OK from the console maker, otherwise you just can’t legally publish it. The console makers (Sony, MS, Nintendo) are not keen on OSS for their games, nor are game developers.
The problem with games is that it costs a lot to produce outside of programming. So, even if you had an open-source engine, you still need to pay modelers, animators, integrators, designers, texture artists, sound engineers, actors (for voice overs), testers, and so on. Very little of the art stuff can be reused, unlike game engines.
So even with an open-source engine (of which there are a few), you’d have a hard time making open-source games. Even so, the console makers wouldn’t allow it, so it could only be on PC. The fact that there are very few such OS games shows that the market isn’t there. OTOH, the fact that there is so many OSS apps shows that the market IS there.
Another founding block of American society is freedom. You have the freedom to use Windows XP or SCO Unix or whatever, while supporting American corporations. Others have the freedom to use free software. I think the market should decide, not one individual who goes by the name of “top speed”.
As for devaluating products and services, I guess you think that Sun is anti-American for selling Solaris x86 for $120? I mean SCO Unix is selling their products for thousands of dollars.
Regardless of whether or not SCO has a case, how can any company be “put on notice” without any proof of the statements veracity? SCO as of this time has made many accusations but has not tendered any proof in a reasonably available manner.
Also can you provide any examples where Torvalds knowingly put in code where it was known or warned to be likely to infringe on anothers IP? The fact that he does not research patents is one thing. This is the only viable way to write new code unless you are part of a fairly serious organization that has IP specialists. What you are acusing him of is willful misconduct.
I think the market should decide, not one individual who goes by the name of “top speed”.
Absolutely. But it is unfair competition when something that has a cost of $0 and can be downloaded instantly. If that product contains stolen portions, it is even more unfair. Sun has none of these liabilities, and is controlled by Scott McNealy, not Linus Torvalds.
Make your own decisions. I provide reasonings behind mine.
Absolutely. But it is unfair competition when something that has a cost of $0 and can be downloaded instantly.
Commercial software should then provide a superior product. Most people, given a choice between $0 crap and a nice piece of software that costs $100 would choose the latter.
Is it unfair competition to give your friend a drive home, instead of making him pay for a taxi fare?
[i]If that product contains stolen portions, it is even more unfair.
I agree. I would be very unhappy to learn that my GPL’d code has made its way into commercial software, and that the commerical company was making money of my volunteer work.
Absolutely. But it is unfair competition when something that has a cost of $0 and can be downloaded instantly.
Commercial software should then provide a superior product. Most people, given a choice between $0 crap and a nice piece of software that costs $100 would choose the latter.
Is it unfair competition to give your friend a drive home, instead of making him pay for a taxi fare?
If that product contains stolen portions, it is even more unfair.
I agree. I would be very unhappy to learn that my GPL’d code has made its way into commercial software, and that the commerical company was making money of my volunteer work.
The difference is that it endangers your personal safety to work in a sweatshop, and it is a violation of human rights. On the other hand, some college student writing neat software and releasing it for free does not hurt the college student.
You didn’t reply to my other point. What’s to stop commercial software from ripping off GPL’d programs? It has happened in the past.
Finally what do you want to do about free software? Ban it outright?
Make your own decisions. I provide reasonings behind mine.
Actually, no. You base your reasoning on unproved allegations, which have consistently changed since the beginning of this whole mess.
You also ignore the fact that SCO has distributed the alleged code under the GPL. You try to give yourself an air of objectivity, and yet consciously ignore all the arguments that undermine the anti-Linux point of view.
Reasoning? Nah…FUD, pure and simple.
I will never pay SCO the $4800 that according to thier messed up extortion scheme, mainly because there is no possible way that at any point in the near future will I be able to afford to pay that ammount.
I really don’t think that SCO is trustworthy to oversee the management of free software’s ip integrity, and I would hate to see such a task fall into the hands of a single company. It would be best if it was carried out by a independent not for profit organization, although I have to say that I really don’t see how checking the IP integrity is even possible since theres no real way for anyone to check to see what code is in closed source software.
Top Speed, you say that you like open source if used for educational games, but have you considered how much money poor school districts will have to pay to SCO if this goes through? In recent years many school systems have gone windows free in at least their server rooms for precisely the reason that they cannot afford microsoft liscences when money is as tight at it is. With the recent education initiatives, schools have to make sure they keep thier test scores up, or they stand to lose even more money from the state. Free software of all kinds and of professional quality is a necessity for schools now.
Topspeed, I use Linux & open-source software because I can’t afford Windows & Office etc etc… I can get pirated versions of Windows et al dirt cheap but I choose not to use them, so do I qualify as a “free software pirate” too?
Absolutely. But it is unfair competition when something that has a cost of $0 and can be downloaded instantly. If that product contains stolen portions, it is even more unfair. Sun has none of these liabilities, and is controlled by Scott McNealy, not Linus Torvalds
You have something against Linus, and you really like Scott, and Bill Gates.
The point is Linux hardly ever costs you $0 to get it. Even warez doesn’t. You need a good internet connection, and you need the internet for updates, and it costs you time.
Linux is like a public good, if yo uhave done economics, like water. You shouldn’t have to pay for water. You only pay because water is a scarce resource. But software is not. Copying it takes a few cpu cyles, some RAM, and some hard drive space. Linux is not made for profit. It is made as a means to an end. What people really want is not a noperating system. What they want is to solve problems. That is waht computers are meant for. Software is overpriced. Linux is bringing it down to where it is supposed to be. Almost free.
If you have any knowledge of economics, you would know that the price of a product not only reflects its costs to produce, but also its demand curve. The price of software is kept artificially high because some companies would like to make much money from it. Microsft has profits of some $10 billion from revenues of 25 billion. That is abnormal, and it exists unnaturally. Linux is bringing balance.
You’re obviously not even reading my posts anymore. Sad, you seemed honest at first. I said repeatedly there are good applications for source open, just that few of their programmers want to actually do any of that work. Those that do, like Coral Snake, I respect.
Actually I am interested in an honest discussion. However you keep dodging my points and repeating the same old tripe.
Fact is, there is a growing body of open code out there, and you cannot stop it. I develop a world-class open source program, and it has already taken over a large portion of its commercial competitor’s market share. And if they go out of bussiness, so what? Its not my fault their programmers suck…
He’ll have fun explaining the hit man comment too. How funny if this turns out to be one of the pieces of code SCO claims was stolen.
As others have pointed out, it would be nice if we could get a look at the code in question. But, SCO’s got that locked up tighter than a ducks arse (which, in case you don’t know, is water tight).
just let me say I prefer that as an American, and I could certainly understand if countries like Iraq or China would prefer Linux, which I believe they do.
Why does it seem you get your kicks off of villifing Linux? Its almost like you’re trying to make Linux a villian by association with countires you have an moral and ideoligcal difference (not that Iraq, under Hussien, dosen’t deserve to be villified).
and IBM or SCO is probably going to have to manage it, somebody that has some liability for it to work in a modern business society.
Whoa!!! So, now your saying that corporations should manage the process of non-commercial software? Where is the logic in that? “Sure, Coke, you can go in and manage all of Pepsi’s operations, just to be sure that none of your forumla sneaks into a Pepsi bottle.”
And why is anyone that uses free-software a ‘pirate’? To be honest, I think using free software is more logical. Instead of ‘pirating’ a copy of WindowsXP, I legitimatly using a free operating system (at least, I far as I know). If (and this is a big IF), SCO wins, and Linux is deemed to contain stolen IP, consider me a FreeBSD user (at least I can get ROX running on that). If FreeBSD is considered dead in the water, I’ll start looking at something like Syllable, which is coming along quite nicely.
However much you want free software to go away, top speed, it won’t. Same as commercial software will not go away…
and as I said before, I cannot trust a organization currently engaging in activities that could be construed as criminal to stop after just one success. After the first 1500 companies, if successful, they’ll go after more, after that they’ll go after Colleges, school districts (microsoft and the BSA already do this), and personal users like myself.
And how exactly does cross liscensing and indemnification stop a company from taking code from a GPL project, closing it up, and saying that they’ve just made a great new product? I can see how the indemnification stops people from suing end users, but really I don’t think that anyone would seriously go after users, unless thier whole goal was extracting money through intimidation.
TopSpeed, you are so completely blinded by your own sense of importance, I’m not sure if you even realize how silly some of your statements read.
IANAL but here is my take, seemingly supported by plenty of actual lawyers out there. No one except IBM currently has anything to worry about from SCO. Yes they claim that something they have the rights to control and extract payment from is so hopelessly intermingled with what we call GNU/Linux (or more commonly Linux). They refuse to tell anyone what exactly the problem is, instead they demand payment from everyone and anyone willing to listen. The world, outside of the Mafia/Yacuza/etc., doesn’t work that way. IBM after having their lawyers diligently research the issues has decided to counter sue. Having probably the biggest patent portfolio of any company, they decide to include that as a portion of their claims. I won’t get into a discussion about just how ludicrous software patents are for the moment.
Let’s examine a few of the misconception you have been uttering shall we;
“Actually, not true if you are running it on a business network, and got a letter from SCO, and their accusations turn out to be true. Once on notice, you are liable.”
FALSE – “On notice” that leads to liability means notice with enough information that a reasonable person could discern what it was that, in this case they were infringing upon. The notice has to be sufficiently detailed that the person you are notifying could see that you might have a case and could rectify/stop their infringing action.
For example; “If you drive your car across my property, I can’t say that you are trespassing and have to pay me $100 a day without telling you where my property lines are, and point to some proof, like a deed registered with the city clerk the clearly shows the land in question and the fact that I have title to it. If I do “put you on notice” then you have the option of challenging my ownership of the land, challenging where the boundaries are, paying me, or simply driving your car another route. If I don’t tell you where my land ends, and show you that I have a potential title to it, you aren’t “put on notice”.
You also wrote:
“Sure, there is some burden for SCO to check, but not much burden really since Torvalds takes contributions and imbeds them in Linux even if warned they are likely infringing. Without ANY check by Torvalds, SCO’s burden as owner is certainly no higher than his is, which is zero.”
The source code for the kernel, and most of the rest of GNU/Linux is an open book. Anyone who cares can take a look to see what’s in there. Even if Torvalds WANTED to check all code submissions before he accepted them, just where is the “Great Closed Source Repository” that contains a copy of all of the proprietary source code ever written? What did you say, there isn’t one. You mean I can’t check out a copy of the source code to SCO’s great and all powerful intellectual property (well actually, I believe most of it has already been published, but that isn’t what SCO’s complaining about). If Torvalds wanted to make sure that no source code from Microsoft XP finds it’s way into the kernel, just where would he go for a look at the source code to Windows XP? You have that web site handy? (perhaps those Russian crackers have a copy). SCO has a copy of their magic Unix source code, they have a copy of Caldara Linux, that they are still providing the world from their ftp site, but according to you they have just as much responsibility as someone with absolutely zero access to any closed source. Copyright used to only cover things that were published. If that were still the case we wouldn’t be in this situation.
Then there’s this little gem;
“Concerning this question, well, IF SCO wins, which is certainly not a given, but if they do, depending on the size of your corporation you could be required to fork over a lot of money, money you probably aren’t budgeted for. ”
Why would any end user be required to fork over anything? Worse case for an end user, you wouldn’t be able to distribute the code that you are currently using, unless or until you stripped out the “offending code”. You see the GPL doesn’t allow you to simply pay SCO a licensing fee and then distribute it. Either it’s GPLed or it isn’t. Using it doesn’t require any more of a license than when you bought it.
Hank wrote – “So does that mean Coke could send out a letter to all Pepsi distributors with the insinuation that Pepsi may be using part of their secret forumla?”
You answered – “No, not the same, when people download Linux from kernel.org, they are accepting ownership of the product verses a license to ‘use’ the software, without ownership, which removes your personal liability.”
Did you actually read what you wrote? It’s exactly the same as the Pepsi/Coke example Hank mentioned. The DISTRIBUTORS might be liable if they keep distributing Linux AFTER a court finds that it contains infringing code, and that code isn’t removed. The END USERS have exactly zero liability. You said that when people download Linux they accept OWNERSHIP.
Now to revisit Hank’s example. If you buy a 12oz can of coke, you don’t actually OWN that can? Perhaps you just have a license to drink… If Coke believes that Pepsi infringes on their formula, marketing, trademarks, etc. whether Coke is correct and wins a multimillion dollar settlement, or are drinking from the same fountain as SCO, it doesn’t effect you at all. Coke can’t successfully sue anyone who owns/drinks Pepsi. If anyone from Coke showed up at your house and demanded $10 per can, $100 per 2 liter bottle or they’ld sue, you would be more than justified at laughing in their faces, before you slammed the door shut. Guess what, assuming that Coke actually did win and required Pepsi to change their product or pay a license fee to Coke, they can’t send anyone over to your house to raid your refrigerator to confiscate any “infringing” bottles of Pepsi you might have lying around. Just like a company (Company A) that bought and deploys GNU/Linux. If by some miracle SCO prevails against IBM, RedHat, Suse, etc. That doesn’t mean that Company A now owes SCO one red cent. Nor does it mean that they have to stop USING it. They would probably have to stop distributing it, that’s it. No matter what, USING GNU/Linux incurs no liability. Isn’t actually BUYING a copy of code wonderful, none of that nasty EULA aftertaste.
Of course you started posting on this thread with the following gem of wisdom:
“Just like in there original response, IBM still refuses to deny they put Unix code in Linux, or that it doesn’t constitute ‘derivative’ work, just like we saw from them in their original response”
You seem to be implying that by not refuting SCO’s allegation that somehow this proves that SCO is right and IBM knows it. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it does no such thing. What exactly does IBM have to refute? SCO still hasn’t shown anyone (without their horribly Byzantine NDA) just what the code that IBM is supposedly infringing is? Until SCO publicly states what it believes is stolen there isn’t much to refute.
SCO: You’ve stolen our code and put it into Linux.
IBM: What code?
SCO: You’ve stolen our code, and our trade secrets and put it into Linux.
IBM: What code?
SCO: You’ve stolen our code, and our trade secrets, and our methods and put it into Linux.
IBM: What code? (Ugh….)
You: See, “…IBM still refuses to deny they put Unix code in Linux…”
Well that’s enough refuting for now, my fingers are getting tired….
someone247356
Just my $0.02 (Canadian, before taxes)
If you now switched to something completely legal
It has not been proven that Linux is illegal. Even if it is most people would rather use one of the BSDs than Solaris x86, since quite frankly Solaris x86 sucks (Sparc version is much better).
I paid $40 odd for my Libranet installation, topspeed, forgive my stupidity.
Microsft has profits of some $10 billion from revenues of 25 billion. That is abnormal, and it exists unnaturally. Linux is bringing balance…
Actually, that is completely wrong, and I will tell you why.
M$ offers something that Linux doesn’t, or probably ever will. Consistency, and integration, which is why they have 80+% of the market.
Linux is very fragmented, and there seem to be more versions announced every day. OSNEWS constantly is posting about versions of Linux I never even heard of.
And there are many incompatibilities with each distribution, including down to what the basic root directories are named. But try to point this out to a die-instead Linux advocate, and they will tell you “that is the beauty of Linux”.
This is the same story with Unix, ‘fracture’ or ‘fragmentation’ really competes poorly with M$ consistent interface and integrated capabilities, which is again why they are at 80%+.
But since the *nix crowd is proud of their diversity, and actually argue AGAINST integration and consistency, they could be stuck with a small fragmented portion of the overall market for a very long time.
I hereby put you on notice that I am collecting and storing all of your posts. You disparage Linux users and Linux software with ongoing unsubstantiated claims.
If any of your posts are found to contain libel or are defamatory in nature, I will file suit against you and have my lawyer serve OSNEWS a subpoena for your identity and may pursue damages, particularly so if the discovery process reveals that you are not making bona fide comments with your opinions, but you are a direct or indirect party in the ongoing SCO litigation.
I have observe your behavior in this site and believe that there is malicious intent in your postings. If you think that a veil of anonymity shelters you from your responsibility to be truthful in your representations of a company’s products or its users, you are in for a rude awakening.
Don’t you guys understand how useless it is to rebutt Topspeed? He only answers to the posts that can be (barely) argued by pushing exemples to the absurd!
Amazing. Ive been on OSNews for a long damn time, and never before have I found someone that could spew as much complete unintelligent garbage. TopSpeed should go back to ZDNet with the other brainless trolls. Its Ok though, it will be 100 times more entertaining to see his reaction when SCO gets stomped into the ground like it should.
btw….whats worse…supporting open source and Linux where there may be a some minor infringing lines of code outa millions upon millions of code that can easily be re-written…..OR……supporting the convicted monopolist in the US and soon to be hammered in Europe. As well as the other company that hasnt had a new idea of its own …..EVAR, holds only a small handfull of Unix copyrights and little to no patents, its entire history is based licensing copyrights to software it didnt write, and of course litigation.
This very post could possibly be modded down just because it merely contains the word ‘slashdot’.
Gee, do you think so? Because sometimes OSNews points to Slashdot articles, and vice versa…seems to me that the two site complement each other well, Slashdot being more of a general “geek” site, while OSNews focuses on OSes.
I think the real issue is that on Slashdot, obvious trolls can be moderated down, while here they are allowed to repeat the same lies over and over again…
There is no warranty from Linux whatsoever, if you computer suddenly blew to peices while running it, well tough.
There’s no warranty for Microsoft Exchange Server, or even WindowsXP which protects against damages that occur on your system due to security breeches, software bugs or any other factors which may cause data loss or system down time. That’s standard software industry practice.
So, the problem for you in all this is that American corporations would get less money…
I’ve got lots of actual stories where people were killed, had their countries devastated and were even tortured and it was tolerated (even assisted) by the American government because that was apparently better for American corporations and interests… That’s just to tell you where this kind of “principles” you’ve got lead to.
But probably you don’t care.. or you will think that for speaking that I am probably linked to Al Qaeda or I am obviously a communist…
If America would have been built by men like you, my guess is that it wouldn’t be a tenth of what it is now, but you probably are very satisfied with your present President who tends to think much like you.
Ah.. By the way.. Why should Open Source make car games instead of the systems in which people with not so deep pockets can do unnecessary things like science, for an example?
There is no warranty from Linux whatsoever, if you computer suddenly blew to peices while running it, well tough.
You are really grasping at straws. Microsoft is not liable if your computer blows up while running Windows, either. In fact, the EULA for MS products stipulates that they are liable for almost nothing, including security breaches, damage to the computer hardware, etc.
And you did not answer the question about OSS code being illegally put into proprietary software. This has nothing to do with cross-licensing. This is more like SCO putting GPLed code in the Linux Kernel Personality of UnixWare.
I’ll ask again: what proof do we have that MS Office doesn’t contain stolen open-source code? With free software, the source is available for everyone to audit, while God knows what’s inside proprietary software…
I think all published code should be kept under escrow, with auditors going through it and making sure it does not infringe on someone else’s IP (something that’s not necessary with Linux or other OSS). The fact is, there is probably stolen IP in Microsoft products – and more than likely in SCO software.
I’ve got lots of actual stories where people were killed, had their countries devastated and were even tortured and it was tolerated (even assisted) by the American government because that was apparently better for American corporations and interests… That’s just to tell you where this kind of “principles” you’ve got lead to.
I can probably provide similar examples from every country that ever existed in the history of the human race. What’s your point? Should we try and get rid of this type of activity. Of course. The worst way of accomplishing that is to think that your own government, or only one particular type of government, is capable of such barbaric practices.
If you look at the SEC filing for trades by “insiders” there has been net sales of 593,323 shares over the last 45 days. Hummmmm…………
…let’s try to stay on topic, which is SCO vs. IBM – or should I say, SCO’s last stand before it is blasted into oblivion.
SCO’s last stand before it is blasted into oblivion.
We can only hope. Next up should be Canopy Group, their parent company who’s modus operendi is also predatory litigation.
Ya, and TopSpeed will have to get a new nick handle. And then us OSS villianous thieves can get on with lives while he and Darl McBride sit around a nice fire and sing kum-bay-ya…….thats of course assuming that ole Darl isnt in jail for insider trading.