Linux community told to 'get real'

[Targhan]

First things first.  What exactly is SCO claiming was "copied"?  Next, where should (not is) their blame be pointed to?  Finally, why is it that the users got drug into it?  GPL is fairly clear, and a user only has that to go on when the acquire a Linux Distrobution.

I do want to add that it is utterly disgusting, in my opinion, for ANY reporting body to attack USERS.

[mikeymike]

I do want to add that it is utterly disgusting, in my opinion, for ANY reporting body to attack USERS.

But that's the whole point for SCO to embark on something like this.  They want to rake in licence fees.

[Fats]

Look at this quote:

Unfortunately, the typical response of a Linux user to SCO's claims has been to dismiss them. They criticise SCO for even hinting that Linux could be anything other than perfectly legal and clean, and support actions such as the recent denial of service attack on the SCO website.

And this is where this author is so wrong. Most important people in the linux community have always stated that they want to remove all code from the kernel which is not legally there. If SCO wants to cooperate they even want to help trace down the wrong code and take the necessary actions.

[bhoggett]

@Targhan

First things first. What exactly is SCO claiming was "copied"?

Some code from UNIX was supposedly copied into the Linux kernel. SCO say this was done by IBM, but they are refusing to divulge further details. Even the heavily disfigured snippets of code they have supposedly shown fail to prove their case.

Next, where should (not is) their blame be pointed to?

If their allegations were true, then the blame should be pointed at IBM. At first, this is what they did because they wanted to invite (force?) a buyout bid from them, but then they received a bribe from Microsoft (in the form of MS buying a license they didn't have any use for) to turn the fight into an anti-Linux one.

Finally, why is it that the users got drug into it?

Because SCO chose to do so. The fact is that the only effective way to hurt Linux is to attack the users. Also, threatening users who have no access to the evidence of the case is easier than threatening IBM who know what they did or did not do.

GPL is fairly clear, and a user only has that to go on when the acquire a Linux Distrobution.

True, but any license is only as binding as the legality of the original contribution allows. If IBM illegally contributed code they did not own under the GPL, then the GPL license as applied to that code is void.  Unfortunately, a user buying "in good faith" is not necessarily a good enough defense.

I do want to add that it is utterly disgusting, in my opinion, for ANY reporting body to attack USERS.

In this case, it's a question of hitting soft targets. It's the software industry equivalent of a military attack on civilian targets in order to turn popular opinion against its own side for causing or prolonging the war. Software terrorism, you might say.

[Tomas]

First things first. What exactly is SCO claiming was "copied"?

That is the biggest question... SCO does not want to show the code that was claimed stolen  :-x

They expect to blindly trust their word, and pay for their license without any proofs at all.

[Tomas]

But that's the whole point for SCO to embark on something like this. They want to rake in licence fees.

I think so to, and also think they wanted to raise their stocks, so they could sell for big profits. "Rumours" i have heard say that is exactly what has happened, since SCO stocks raised sky high, the employes has been selling stocks as hel*

All they want is to fill their greedy pockets with money, before the company goes down.

[Floid]

Wain wrote:

Interesting, but wouldn't Novell's original claim still hold true??   I thought SCO was claiming patent theft, not copyright infingment.

SCO is claiming theft of trade secrets, among other things.  The full complaint should be available somewhere at http://www.sco.com/scosource when they get their servers back online again.  Patent ownership probably can't hurt in terms of proving who invented/owns the 'secrets.'

Novell didn't 'cave' blindly; they had an old contract waved back in their faces, and decided it was too much of a mess to bother with a lawsuit over.  They can wait for the IBM suit to blow through, and only have to waste time on it if SCO actually manages to win.
http://www.hostingtech.com/news/2003[...] (Truncated the link text to keep it from stretching the page wide.)
http://theregister.co.uk/content/archive/31086.html

Of course, from http://news.osdir.com/article203.html, this shows who SCO thought really owned what recently...  and why Novell really doesn't have to give two craps either way:

Further, from Bruce Perens via LWN.net: "it interesting to note the following in SCO's annual report as filed with the SEC: "The Company has an arrangement with Novell, Inc. ("Novell") in which it acts as an administrative agent in the collection of royalties for customers who deploy SVRx technology. Under the agency agreement, the Company collects all customer payments and remits 95 percent of the collected funds to Novell and retains 5 percent as an administrative fee." SCO never owned Unix; it just does the paperwork for a 5% cut. (Thanks to Karsten Self, who posted this to the linux-elitists list)"

So if Linux customers do get shaken down... Novell still gets a 95% cut?  ...Meanwhile, *their* Linux business is well-protected by ownership of the patents, should SCO's crackheads-at-the-helm try to turn around and crash on them.

One of the more interesting ways to follow this is through Greg Lehey's analysis: http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html.  As a veteran BSD developer, he's quite familiar with the old USL/BSD suit and its outcome... and also versed in much arcane UNIX lore.

One of the interesting lessons of that suit was that the Berkely side actually came away with more "UNIX" than anyone may have expected, since USL was proved to have resold *their* code while removing the copyright.  (Resale would've been allowed, but copyright violation is copyright violation, even when you give it out for free!)  You can see him approaching from this angle as he picks at Raymond's analysis; from his perspective, if the code was modified to the point that more was 'new' than 'the originator's property,' Linux would still have good grounds for ownership, so there's no harm in considering the possibility, and hey, it's not his project anyway. ;-)

Of course, the BSD code was never challenged over 'trade secrets' that I know of, USL was happy to discuss what they found infringing, and the settlement officially *blessed* the 4.4 Lite (2?) sources for all eternity.

In contrast, SCO's refused to provide evidence to the community so the problem can be resolved; this shows they're more interested in the 'extortion' angle than simple defense of their property.  In essence, they've reported their car as stolen, claim a dealer has it on his lot, and are trying to sue for damages while refusing to reveal the make, model, or VIN, or even file a police report.  (A 'police report' being a direct claim of copyright infringement against, say, whoever [at SGI?] professed to have copyright on it by submitting it to Linux, rather than the company with the deepest pockets.)  You can argue - and occasionally they've argued - that they're only going after IBM because IBM put developers on Linux who might have maybe come in contact with what might sort of possibly be code that could've at one point been considered SCO (or USL?) property in AIX... but you can't make that jibe with their call upon *users* to stock up on magic Keep_SCO_From_Suing_You beans.

[Floid]

Bill Hoggett said,

I do want to add that it is utterly disgusting, in my opinion, for ANY reporting body to attack USERS.

In this case, it's a question of hitting soft targets. It's the software industry equivalent of a military attack on civilian targets in order to turn popular opinion against its own side for causing or prolonging the war. Software terrorism, you might say.

Man, that's a weird way to phrase it.  It's the equivalent of an *encroachment* in the hopes that the other side will do something to make it look bad.  Like Israel walling Palestinians into ghettos, or Egypt blockading the Suez, stationing troops in the Sinai, and waiting for .il to substantiate its borders in the first place.  

"Look at those horrid Linux refugees, lobbing Molotovs at our servers, stealing the fruit of our meager enterprise!  We are civil, we come to sue for peace, and only ask for what we claim!  IBM, why do you not put a stop to this?!"

But was he talking about SCO or the press, anyway?

[DanDude]

In short, buy a new Amiga  :-D
'nuff said!

[DethKnight]

My favorite page (lately) to get real linux info

http://arstechnica.com/etc/linux/index.html


also on the main page www.arstechnica.com , the storys about the death of flash and the Dell "click wrap" license conundrum

fun stuff no?

[Siggy]

DanDude wrote:
In short, buy a new Amiga  :-D
'nuff said!

The only new Amiga I've seen about is the AmigaOne.. and what operating system does it use at the moment??

Siggy.