Posted on 07/28/2003 2:23:20 PM PDT by amigatec
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:58:59 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Many Linux customers have no intention of paying The SCO Group for a UnixWare license that would indemnify them from legal liability for using the open-source operating system.
SCO, which is suing IBM over Unix for more than $1 billion and which claims that Linux is an illegal derivative of Unix, last week said Linux users are also violating SCO's Unix copyrights, particularly now that SCO has registered a U.S. copyright for its Unix System V source code.
(Excerpt) Read more at eweek.com ...
How about naming a couple instead of just dropping a blanket statement on us?
Section 1 and 2 especially are by far the most important. Most of the rest is just further clarifying section 1. But section 2 is the meat, where they practically invite analysis of what was seen, and in no way prohibit that analysis from being released.
Responses from those that have seen it have varied from "very formadable" to "inconclusive". NO ONE has said anything like "absurd" or "unlikely", which somehow still seems to be the Red Hat et al position.
SCO will simply be bought out to solve the problem if IBM is guilty.
SCO has claimed repeatedly they do not want to be bought out. Assuming this is true (which of course it may or may not be), could the SEC prevent hostile takeover if the two parties are embroiled in a legal contest? I am not sure but doubt they would allow it.
I still say that there is something fundamentally wrong with the law when you can't tell if you are breaking the law until you are in a courtroom and have a judgement.
Certain laws are unfortunately setup to "gotcha" such as DUI laws as it is NOT against the law to have a drink and drive, although it IS against the law to have over a certain amount you may not be able to easily measure yourself and then drive. However that being said, I don't really see where it applies to this case? If IBM took code they had promised via contract not to disclose to others, then did, it would seem pretty open and shut IMO.
As for DUI laws, one actually can test their blood alcohol using a device and they can evaluate their alcohol intake against their weight, etc. and make an educated guess. With IP law (and I'm not just limiting things to this particular case), it is often impossible, no matter how careful you are, to avoid illegal infringement. I don't think it is the same thing at all.
"wilfull intent" is where you really get the penalties though. IBM breaking out of the project monterrey, then announcing to a Linux expo crowd that IBM was putting Unix into Linux could end up being what really costs them should SCO win.
I'm not sure Red Hat could at this point, but again concerning IBM buyout, do you think they would just immediately GPL Unix? Saying no thanks to that potential diamond mine sitting there of unpaid Linux users could be very difficult to ignore, IBM is the 'original' evil empire, remember.
There is a potential payback, but only if IBM can help correct other Linux ailments such as lack of indemnity. Linux definitely has potential, but it remains a diamond in the rough that needs to be further polished which will continue to require signficant investment.
Unix on the other hand, is a Cash Cow in waiting (via other Unix income) ready to bear tremendous milk if the Linux users have to finally fork over some money for their wares.
I'd say it would be a tough call, but back to the SEC, I don't think they would allow the buyout unless IBM takes over rights and continues to charge for them, simply because IBM is the accused. Just a guess of course.
The fact that "SCO" distributed Caldera Linux also complicates matters greatly for them. The problem is that if their suit has merits, they really did have the right to put the IP under the GPL and the release of their own distribution may very well have done that.
Of course, as I said, IP law is too murky. We won't really know how this will turn out until it gets in front of a judge and we see all of the evidence.
This is where I think the GPL is problematic. If the GPL were not viral, it would be possible to mix AIX with Linux and keep the high-performance bits propietary and charge for them, leaving low-powered installations free. Of course it might be possible to do this with *BSD, which is where this will go next if Linux really does wind up in trouble. That will haul Apple into the mix.
BWAAA-HAAA-HAAA!!!
The non-disclosure agreement SCO wants them to sign says that they cannot say anything negative about SCO after seeing the source code.
In other words, the NDA says that if they look at the code, they have to agree with SCO.
That is a nonsense phrase coined by Bill Gates, just before he slipped SCO a boatload of cash so they wouldn't go bankrupt before starting their FUD campaign.
I think that IBM will either buy SCO, or they will become partners again. I think that Linux users will one day for for Linux as well. That mostly assumes that SCO will win, but even if they don't, IBM is a greedy company that Linux users shouldn't trust, just like most M$ users shouldn't trust M$. But that's just business, doesn't mean you can't use their products, as I have lots of both companies products right here in my home (This is being written on dual IBM system running a version of Windows).
I agree, and think the price will be set at $100. I saw a link one time to an detailed article on a linux website that claimed WAY before this lawsuit came about that they had this plan and were going to charge $100 per. If it comes out $500 per, then it means either SCO thinks they have a slam dunk, or they are terribly out of money!
Sorry,
Based on the reports of the SCO NDA, it sounds like Red Hat is doing the right thing. Why should they tie their hands in order to see the limited examples SCO is providing?
Aren't you overlooking the obvious penalties associated with IBM's use of poison gas, and the killing of millions of innocent women and children?
In watching the two of you go back-and-forth with all the various crimes IBM might have committed, I am stunned that you are leaving out the really important things. Assuming for a moment that IBM had Kennedy killed, there could be serious consequences. Or suppose that IBM planned and executed the 9/11 attacks?
It sounds plausible to me that Enron was their fault, too. Why worry about this puny SCO stuff when IBM is clearly the largest criminal enterprise on Earth?
Let's face it. It is only through the efforts of Bill Gates, the heroic American who steals other people's innovations and then sends shills into Internet forums to throw crap on other people, that we even know of these things. What horrible evil might still be hidden from us? Inquiring minds want to know.
I didn't get that out of the NDA, but you sure can't make any kind of persuasive argument.
Using the article you kindly linked to, the cause of your question:
my issue was with the Red Hat statement We 'see'..." when it fact they have seen nothing.
is mostly due to the secrecy of SCO. Contrast this with the published specifics of a similar IP suit against Microsoft.
Referring again to the article you selected:
"I asked a couple of times why SCO was being so secretive about everything. The answers were not particularly convincing. "thanks very much for your reply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.