FSF, the leading free software group has vowed to fight portions of a request to release information that could help the SCO Group in its legal battle against Linux.
Open-source group says no to SCO
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Calling the Free Software Foundation an “Open-source group” must be some kind of joke for RMS ;o)
I’m not that sure he’d really appreciate it, BTW…
You’d be surprised how many people mistake free software for open software and vice-versa. Only a few threads below this one, I read a commentator openly blunder about how Java is free and open.
SCOX is below $5.00, actually trading today in the $4.75 area, so McBride and co. will be pretty amenable to making a deal to get anything that might prolong the descent a few days or weeks longer.
Well I hate to say this, but SCO has the right to sue FSF now… And most likely SCO would win this one. I know, it stinks, but hey, its up to the judges….
Also I think the FSF is for Open source, having programs Truely Free, as in able to see the code, modify it, etc..
Groklaw link: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040519123021191
Well I hate to say this, but SCO has the right to sue FSF now… And most likely SCO would win this one. I know, it stinks, but hey, its up to the judges….
Wrong, the FSF has nothing to do with Linux other than the fact that they created a license which Linus chose, they did not add code to any part of Linux and they don’t deal with it.
If you read the subpeona it says that Linux is a Unix-based Operating System, it’s not. It’s a Unix-like Operating System. I would be fighting this subpeona too, it’s asking to disclose just about everything, most of it none of SCOs buisnesss.
“Well I hate to say this, but SCO has the right to sue FSF now…”
HAHA! On what grounds, may I humbly ask, does SCO have the right to sue the FSF? Further, exactly what school issued your law degree??
“Well I hate to say this, but SCO has the right to sue FSF now…”
They were subpoenaed, not sued. And they had to reply before novembre 17 2003. After that, nothing happened, except that the FSF now made this information available on their website on may 18 2004 (about 6 months later).
Given nothing happened regarding FSF between those 6 months, i myself am assuming there’s nothing happening against the FSF from SCO. Because i do not understand why SCO didn’t they re-subpoena the FSF. The assumption doesn’t correlate with what Brad Kuhn wrote on the page since he’s writing about their response instead.
Any view on this?
Howdy
This is probably just another “we`ll take on the world” residue from the previous media based stock pumping plan.
No need to fret .. they are royally screwed :0)
Sounds like to me that the FSF has something to hide. If they have nothing to hide then why not release the information? The attorney-client privilege can keep them from releasing information from their attorneys to them, but FSF communications with their contributors should not be held as confidential. Oh well, the judges and courts will figure it out, my thinking on this is what I said before, there is a lot more skeletons in the Linux closet then a lot of people know about.
“If they have nothing to hide then why not release the information?”
Yeah. That’s what the Stasi in the DDR said as well… if that were true, then why are our government’s secret services not providing what they found? It is damn simple: you don’t want your “enemy” (or “competitor”) to know what you know.
FSF has “something” to hide but that doesn’t necessarily result that “something” is important for SCO’s case. Moreover, such information was a private discussion not a public one, so there are 3rd parties involved who spoken on the assumption of trust and as you have already read, what SCO demands is extremely broad, yes? If i e-mail the FSF about a briliant idea of GPLv3 which would be extremely important for ie. the adoption of Linux, Microsoft would want to know, yes? Well, now, here we have a fictional example of a piece of information you perhaps don’t want your opponent (SCO, Microsoft) to know and the uncertainity of SCO’s integrity that other parties will read this (can be done sneaky). Precisely the reason why IBM didn’t want SCO to see AIX sourcecode at first glance. More examples can be found in the government, secret services, war (on […]), and other conflicts.
Personally, i’m thinking rather this is something of the part “Darl’s on a hunt: he’s shooting like a wild man, but hasn’t hit anyone yet. His willpower to hit one is strong though, so he’s searching and searching… or at least he’s implying he’s seriously doing this.”
“Sounds like to me that the FSF has something to hide.”
Truly the purity of crack sold on the streets has improved! Let me make sure I have this straight. SCO runs a FUD campaign and files a lawsuit, claiming Linux infringes SCO IP, which has been running for a year now. During this time, the public has repeatedly asked SCO to show exactly which code infringes, as SCO repeatedly issues press releases stating they have millions of line of infringement. Yet, SCO consistently produces nothing.
Even once the case gets to the discovery phase, and the judge TWICE asks for SCO to show the code, SCO, yet again, produces nothing. SCO, having unsuccessfully failed to be awarded a fishing expedition into IBM code by the judge, then turns around and requests a fishing expedition, via subpoena, with the FSF. And now you say it is the FSF which has something to hide? UNF%^&ING believable!
Hahaha! What a great piece of backfire! How about the day SEC meets SCO & co to research some internal discussions. That includes discussions with your lawyers.
I don’t know about the USA, but here in the Netherlands a discussion between a lawyer and an individual is a trusted which cannot be made available. Neither a doctor and an individual. Unless _both_ parties wish to. Course, there are arguments which put on preasure like the premise a human life is at stake. It correlates with the right to remain silent, but is practically an addition to it regarding written forms and certain jobs.
Here’s another theory:
“Re:SCO attempting to prove selective enforcement? (Score:5, Insightful)
by Our Man In Redmond (63094) on Thursday May 20, @02:57PM (#9207285)
Trouble is, SCOG doesn’t seem to understand that the FSF doesn’t enforce the GPL, except in cases where they own the copyright to the product offered under the license (e.g. GNU software such as GNU Emacs and gcc). They seem to think the FSF is some kind of GPL Police, which is not the case. It’s up to the individual copyright holder to enforce his/her/its copyright.
This, of course, being only one of the many things SCOG doesn’t understand about the GPL.”
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108296&cid=9207285
And a discussion on why communication between FSF and its contributors would be confidential
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108296&cid=9206706
IBM Goes on the Offensive and Asks for Partial Summary Judgment Now
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040520162431732
” Truly the purity of crack sold on the streets has improved! Let me make sure I have this straight. SCO runs a FUD campaign and files a lawsuit, claiming Linux infringes SCO IP, which has been running for a year now. During this time, the public has repeatedly asked SCO to show exactly which code infringes, as SCO repeatedly issues press releases stating they have millions of line of infringement. Yet, SCO consistently produces nothing. ”
No SCO has produced code example but the open Source community is disputing the code examples. Nothing has been determined legally yet whether SCO is right or wrong, that takes place very soon. I happen to think SCO is full of crap, but that doesnt mean that we should ignore SCO or the threat that they pose, and we should not take the FSF or their advocates as 100% proof that SCO is wrong because A) I was not with that developer when he/she wrote the code or used cut and paste B) not everyone in this world is 100% honest, we are taking the word of these developers on pure face value. Like I stated, I think SCO is dead wrong but Im not ready to dismiss their claims just yet as a stock pumping act. I wrote my thoughts on it and OSNews ran it, and I gave examples to Groklaw of what I think and now its out of my hands and rests on the judge and twelve jurors and whom they believe. It would have been foolish for the Open Source community to say “oops, why yes, some UNIX code did make it into Linux. Gee, we are sorry we will remove it right away” that opens them up to more scrutiny and inevitably more lawsuits. Groklaw and everyone else can start a timeline of UNIX ownership and who wrote what but a timeline isnt going to do much for anyone.
” Even once the case gets to the discovery phase, and the judge TWICE asks for SCO to show the code, SCO, yet again, produces nothing. SCO, having unsuccessfully failed to be awarded a fishing expedition into IBM code by the judge, then turns around and requests a fishing expedition, via subpoena, with the FSF. And now you say it is the FSF which has something to hide? UNF%^&ING believable! ”
SCO has disclosed to IBM, we havent seen the code because the judge ruled for it to be held confidential, it was on ZDNet some time ago. And yes, I do believe everyone in this case is hiding something, SCO is hiding it as is SCO and the FSF. For years Stallman and his followers wanted a free UNIX now it depends on how far they were willing to go to make their dream into a reality. Like I said I will wait for a court ruling and not rely on Linux zealots, advocates and developers to tell me what to think about this case.
” SCO is hiding it as is SCO and the FSF ”
I meant to say IBM is hiding it as is SCO and the FSF, sorry for the typo.
“No SCO has produced code example but the open Source community is disputing the code examples. Nothing has been determined legally yet whether SCO is right or wrong, that takes place very soon.”
BZZZTT!! Wrong! Try again:
1. SCO requested all copies of AIX & Dynix source code from the beginning. The judge said no and disallowed this fishing expedition. The judge said, you claim to already have “millions of lines of infringing code in the kernel, so show your evidence & prove your case. You may not go fishing in this courtroom.
2. When push came to shove, SCO did not have ANY lines of infringing code to show and DROPPED THEIR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS! So there is no issue now before the court regarding claims of copyright infringement. It is now solely a contract dispute between IBM & SCO. Nice try though.
“we should not take the FSF or their advocates as 100% proof that SCO is wrong”
The FSF is not involved in this case and never has been. This dispute is between IBM & SCO.
“A) I was not with that developer when he/she wrote the code or used cut and paste B) not everyone in this world is 100% honest, we are taking the word of these developers on pure face value.”
Can you say “horsesh*t boys & girls? I knew you could:
A. SCO claims to have the Unix source code readily available to them.
B. Have you forgotten that the Linux source code, in every iteration since it’s inception, is PUBLICALLY available on mirrors around the world?
C. If SCO has Unix source code, which can be easily compared to PUBLICALLY available Linux source, then SCO would have no need for the fishing expedtion they requested from the judge. Any infringement would be EASILY shown by simple comparison. The fact that SCO DROPPED their claims of copyright infringement in the discovery phase of this case, tells anyone with a brain that SCO had NO evidence of copyright infringement to pursue. THAT is why SCO dropped the claims of copyright infringement in the absolute earliest stages of this trial.
“I gave examples to Groklaw of what I think and now its out of my hands and rests on the judge and twelve jurors and whom they believe.”
If you wish to astroturf, the least you could do is bother to check the simplest of publically available facts before spreading such hogwash across the internet. This trial is in the DISCOVERY phase right now. That means NOTHING has been put before the jury. The trail itself is not even scheduled to be HEARD until 2005. The fact that you think evidence has been put before a jury proves you don’t have the first clue of what you are discussing.
“Groklaw and everyone else can start a timeline of UNIX ownership and who wrote what but a timeline isnt going to do much for anyone.”
A timeline is not needed. Reverse engineering was legal when Linus first started coding Linux and is STILL legal, in spite of what our corporate taskmasters may tell us. THINK before you post. Any copyright infringement in Linux is easily discovered, since the source code is PUBLICALLY available.
“SCO has disclosed to IBM, we havent seen the code because the judge ruled for it to be held confidential, it was on ZDNet some time ago.”
Never have I seen such crap dumped into a post continuously. SCO HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY INFRINGING CODE TO IBM. SCO DROPPED CLAIMS OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IN THE CASE, SINCE THEY HAD NO EVIDENCE OF IT TO SHOW TO THE COURT!
“And yes, I do believe everyone in this case is hiding something, SCO is hiding it as is SCO and the FSF.”
You also believe evidence has been presented to a jury in a case that is not scheduled to go to trial before 2005. You also believe claims of copyright infringement are being pursued, in spite of the LEGAL FACT, that all claims of copyright infringement have been dropped per SCO’s request. There are misinformed idiots who still believe the earth is flat and man has never landed on the moon. Just becuase a fool believe such things does not make them true.
“For years Stallman and his followers wanted a free UNIX now it depends on how far they were willing to go to make their dream into a reality.”
Oh come on. Humor us here and show us you can get at least one fact straight. Linux is not Unix. Linux is a LEGAL Unix clone, and only one of many.
“Like I said I will wait for a court ruling and not rely on Linux zealots, advocates and developers to tell me what to think about this case.”
Linux zealots did not drop the claims of copyright infringment. SCO did, becuase they had NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support the claim. Your arguments are with the facts of reality. Your arguments fall flat on their face, given that you have not gotten a single fact straight regarding this case. No one is telling you what to think of this case. Most people however, investigate the FACTS of reality before deciding what to believe. Once you get past age 13, perhaps you will too.
He’s either ignorantly ill-informed, a troll, a zealot, or an aspie too far smart for me (us?).
” 1. SCO requested all copies of AIX & Dynix source code from the beginning. The judge said no and disallowed this fishing expedition. The judge said, you claim to already have “millions of lines of infringing code in the kernel, so show your evidence & prove your case. You may not go fishing in this courtroom. ”
Wrong, the court ordered IBM to show the full source code for 232 Software Products, not 232 Lines of code. Read the report.
” “we should not take the FSF or their advocates as 100% proof that SCO is wrong”
The FSF is not involved in this case and never has been. This dispute is between IBM & SCO. ”
Yes true, but Stallman and Raymond as well as other Open Source advocates have all made claims in this case.
” Can you say “horsesh*t boys & girls? I knew you could: ”
Oh really you can find me one person on this world who is completely honest and would not be tempted to succeed at any cost. Sorry, he was beaten, tortured and crucified some time ago. No one in this world is completely honest and a lot of people in the software industry would go to any means to meet their goals.
” If you wish to astroturf, the least you could do is bother to check the simplest of publically available facts before spreading such hogwash across the internet. This trial is in the DISCOVERY phase right now. That means NOTHING has been put before the jury. The trail itself is not even scheduled to be HEARD until 2005. The fact that you think evidence has been put before a jury proves you don’t have the first clue of what you are discussing. ”
Dont read into statements, I know when the trial is. My statement was meant as a I wont start up anymore of my related Linux activities until a judge and jury makes the decision. No where in my statement did i say it was before the judge and jury RIGHT NOW.
” A timeline is not needed. Reverse engineering was legal when Linus first started coding Linux and is STILL legal, in spite of what our corporate taskmasters may tell us. THINK before you post. Any copyright infringement in Linux is easily discovered, since the source code is PUBLICALLY available. ”
Can you say horsesh*t boys and girls I know you could.
I agree with you, a timeline would be useless thus it is not needed. Reverse engineering is not a legal practice it is highly illegal, the problem is not many take it to court because sometimes the reward is not worth the time or the trouble but, try to reverse engineer Windows XP, try to reverse Mac OS X, try to reverse engineer Adobe Photoshop, your a** will be in court so fast you wont even have time to spit.
” Your arguments are with the facts of reality. Your arguments fall flat on their face, given that you have not gotten a single fact straight regarding this case. No one is telling you what to think of this case. Most people however, investigate the FACTS of reality before deciding what to believe. Once you get past age 13, perhaps you will too. ”
Think what you want, I could give a crap less. I know what I know, I believe what I want and it is my belief not to dismiss SCO as quickly as you guys do. Im not going to engage in a petty argument with anyone that A) really doesnt know a thing about tjhe law or this case. I dont know what goes on behind the scenes and neither do you. That was the whole focus of my post. Yet you like the rest of the religous cult come out shooting without bothering to read first. That shows how childish you are almost more than your last paragraph of your rant.
“Wrong, the court ordered IBM to show the full source code for 232 Software Products, not 232 Lines of code. Read the report.”
Read my original post. The judge did not allow access to EVERY iteration of AIX & Dynix source code so that SCO could go fishing. The judge narrowed it down only to source code that MIGHT be applicable to the case, which IBM willingly turned over. The SCO subpoena to the FSF, just like the original request of AIX & Dynix source code, is overly broad. Expect to see the requested documents sufficiently narrowed, IF a judge determines the requested information has bearing on the case.
“Yes true, but Stallman and Raymond as well as other Open Source advocates have all made claims in this case.”
And amazingly enough Stallman & Raymond offer supporting FACTS to back up their claims, rather than claiming MIT scientists have found millions of lines of code, then offering no such evidence in court, to support these claims.
“Oh really you can find me one person on this world who is completely honest and would not be tempted to succeed at any cost. Sorry, he was beaten, tortured and crucified some time ago.”
Oh let me guess, you also believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa & the Tooth Fairy too?
“No one in this world is completely honest and a lot of people in the software industry would go to any means to meet their goals.”
You mean by claiming millions of lines of infringement in the press for months, yet producing NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER in court?
“Reverse engineering is not a legal practice it is highly illegal.”
Well then allow me to apologize. I mistakenly assumed you lived in America, where reverse engineering is legal.
“I know what I know, I believe what I want and it is my belief not to dismiss SCO as quickly as you guys do.”
SCO has asked the court to put off a decision in the Red Hat case, so that the IBM case can be decided FIRST. Then, they turn around and ask a different court to decide the AutoZone case FIRST, which is completely foolish. Autozone will not be decided until IBM is decided. IBM will not be decided until Novell’s information is decided, since Novell claims they have never sold full Unix rights to SCO in the first place. SCO can’t even produce the bill of sale of exactly what they purchased from Novell either. So why is SCO playing this shell game?
Further, SCO distributed Linux for years, under what license? The GPL, so SCO KNOWINGLY, for YEARS, distributed any disputed code themselves under the GPL! To top it all off, Novell NEVER sold Unix rights to SCO in the first place, which makes every single SCO case invalid. Where are the millions of lines of code? Where are the MIT scientists who found the infringment? Why did SCO say it would show infringing code last May in Vegas, but the code turned out to be BSD?
“I dont know what goes on behind the scenes and neither do you.”
Correct, but unlike you, I can observe the behavior of the parties involoved, in the same way the judge will, and see which party is being disingenuous in their behavior from day one. That party is NOT IBM. That party is NOT the FSF. That party is NOT Redhat. That party is NOT Autozone. That party is NOT Daimler Chrysler. That party IS SCO! Look at the record of the behaviour. Only the blind could not see this shell game for what it is.
Yet you like the rest of the religous cult come out shooting without bothering to read first.
I believe you are the one who believes in a big invisible daddy in the sky, not I.
“That shows how childish you are almost more than your last paragraph of your rant.”
You take SCO seriously, in spite of their ridiculous behavior throughout this entire debacle, while refusing to address the major points of the issue, much like a child refuses to see the reality in front of his face. Then you claim that the FSF is hiding something, and just like SCO, you offer not a shred of evidence to back up your claim. Of course you support them. The way you and SCO both argue, you might as well be twins.