-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 27 May 2003 12:55 am, John wrote:

On Monday 26 May 2003 18:35, Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

LinuxTag to SCO: desist from unfair competitive practices

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4603190885.html

I just went to LinuxTag's website

I also applaud their effort, but just because someone sells a linux distribution, it does not nescessarily mean that all of the software/code on the disc is gpl... - -- dh Don't shop at GoogleGear.com! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+03R1BwgxlylUsJARAmiUAJ9rVmYnaAROJZKZpSKQRQSdsVEsHwCgiu8d 19ejnF1YF5HC7oOt9/bT6v0= =KnKa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 11:01, Fergus Wilde wrote:

On Tuesday 27 May 2003 15:21, David Herman wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 27 May 2003 12:55 am, John wrote:

...

On Monday 26 May 2003 18:35, Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

LinuxTag to SCO: desist from unfair competitive practices

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4603190885.html

I just went to LinuxTag's website

I also applaud their effort, but just because someone sells a linux distribution, it does not nescessarily mean that all of the software/code on the disc is gpl...

Very true, and I'm sure they'll argue just that. I was on making just that point about SuSE's disk set the other day. But you can take all the non-gpl stuff out of SuSE and be left with perfectly workable distro - given that SCO=Caldera=United Linux partner, it is hard to see how they can have been putting out a Linux distro without infringing their own intellectual property, or issuing it under the gpl ... unless they want to admit that their IP is only some fringe trivia ...

The idea here isn't that they are releasing a distro with non-gpl code. That isn't the issue at all. They are contending that the Linux kernel is itself violating their IP. LinuxTag is saying that by releasing their own distro which uses the Linux kernel, which they released under the GPL, they have released their IP into the world under the GPL, if indeed their IP is in the kernel. The problem isn't the software that comes with the Linux distro's, it's the kernel itself SCO has a problem with. So, by releasing the Linux kernel under the GPL themselves, they have released their own source out. That's what LinuxTag is contending. -- Jason Lotito www.ezPayNet.com VP of Development jlotito@ezpaynet.com 514.287.0009 ext.21 tel. The Prepaid WebCard Solution 877.397.2999 514.287.9596 fax

On Tuesday 27 May 2003 10:15, Jason Lotito wrote:

The problem isn't the software that comes with the Linux distro's, it's the kernel itself SCO has a problem with. So, by releasing the Linux kernel under the GPL themselves, they have released their own source out. That's what LinuxTag is contending.

Hi Guys, The GPL works by transferring ownershit of the code to the Free Software Foundation. The General Counsil of the FSF has contacted SCO officially requesting that SCO identify to the FSF exactly what code was wrongly placed under the GPL so that it can be removed promptly. If SCO makes the claim, they are obligated to fully inform the FSF of exactly what is wrong. They have NOT replied to the FSF. This is going to be entertaining for a long time I fear. .........PeterB -- -- Proud to use SuSE Linux since 5.2 Loving using SuSE Linux 8.2 MyBlog http://vancampen.org/blog/ --

Better check with Ebin Moglin, general Counsil. He is writing articles to that effect. He and RMS are the founders of the GPL. PeterB On Tuesday 27 May 2003 10:55, James Ogley wrote:

...

The GPL works by transferring ownership of the code to the Free Software Foundation.

Ummm, no it doesn't - the owner of the code retains ownership -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2) GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org

-- -- Proud to use SuSE Linux since 5.2 Loving using SuSE Linux 8.2 MyBlog http://vancampen.org/blog/ --

Better check with Ebin Moglin, general Counsil. He is writing articles to that effect. He and RMS are the founders of the GPL.

The FSF's own advice for how to apply the GPL to your work says you should copyright it to yourself, and distribute it under the terms of the GPL, therefore, you own it. -- James Ogley, Webmaster, Rubber Turnip james@rubberturnip.org.uk http://www.rubberturnip.org.uk Jabber: riggwelter@myjabber.net Using Free Software since 1994, running GNU/Linux (SuSE 8.2) GNOME updates for SuSE: http://www.usr-local-bin.org

On Tuesday 27 May 2003 11:21, Bruce Marshall wrote:

On Tuesday 27 May 2003 11:15 am, Jason Lotito wrote:

...

On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 11:01, Fergus Wilde wrote:

...

On Tuesday 27 May 2003 15:21, David Herman wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Tuesday 27 May 2003 12:55 am, John wrote:

...

On Monday 26 May 2003 18:35, Fred A. Miller wrote:

...

LinuxTag to SCO: desist from unfair competitive practices

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4603190885.html

Not saying any of this has happened, but it could have and if it did, I can see where SCO would not be at fault.

Just my $.02.

...

-- Jason Lotito

************************much trimmed*************** SCO says it is their "TRADE SECRETS" that were released. Trade Secrets (TS) are the least protected form of IP. The owner has a huge burden to show due dilagence at protecting their TS. Many years ago when I was an IBM Systems Engineer in Chicago, IBM had lawyers come in to show us ALL how we ALL had to excercise 'information security'. The important fact here: they said that an Industrial Espionage operative who stole info from an IBM Lab could effectivelly defend himself by citing lax security practices at ANY IBM facility, even those like ours that was for dealing with non-employees (customers). If the defendant could show that there was more that an occasional employee that didn't clear and lock his desk for bathroom and lunch breaks, then there was a lack of sufficient 'due dillagence'. Once OUT TS's are OUT and there is no recourse. You may have recourse against an employee or contractee for violating their contracts, but you can't control who uses the TS. It is very important that you note that SCO filed their suit in UTAH state court. The UTAH law is very strict and punative compared to US Fed. But IBM got the UTAH court to xfer the case to US Fed court because of the interstate nature of the 2 companies. The US Fed law will make it VERY difficult for SCO to prevail. PeterB PeterB -- Proud to use SuSE Linux since 5.2 Loving using SuSE Linux 8.2 MyBlog http://vancampen.org/blog/ --

Today at 10:48am, Peter B Van Campen wrote:

Hi Guys,

The GPL works by transferring ownershit of the code to the Free Software Foundation. The General Counsil of the FSF has contacted SCO officially requesting that SCO identify to the FSF exactly what code was wrongly placed under the GPL so that it can be removed promptly. If SCO makes the claim, they are obligated to fully inform the FSF of exactly what is wrong. They have NOT replied to the FSF.

An author's mere act of releasing software under the GPL does not transfer ownership of that software to the FSF, and there is nothing in the GPL (see COPYING under any GPL package) that requires this. However, the FSF requires a copyright assignment for software that is part of FSF projects. Nothing prevents an author from releasing software under the GPL and retaining copyright ownership, as long as that author's code is not part of a FSF project. Here is a quote from part of the FSF web site on the subject: "In order to make sure that all of our copyrights can meet the recordkeeping and other requirements of registration, and in order to be able to enforce the GPL most effectively, FSF requires that each author of code incorporated in FSF projects provide a copyright assignment, and, where appropriate, a disclaimer of any work-for-hire ownership claims by the programmer's employer. That way we can be sure that all the code in FSF projects is free code, whose freedom we can most effectively protect, and therefore on which other developers can completely rely." So, it appears to me that unless the Linux kernel is part of an official FSF project, the copyright to the various parts of the kernel could be owned by their individual contributors. Jim

On Tuesday 27 May 2003 13:15, Jason Lotito wrote:

...

...

The idea here isn't that they are releasing a distro with non-gpl

I don't see how you can agree with what I said above, it's fact, not opinion. They did release a Linux distro. It had a Kernel that was release under the GPL, that SCO released. If they choose not to look at what they are selling, that's their problem.

If Microsoft used a bit of GPL code in their system, and didn't follow the GPL in using this code, who would we blame?

And of course, this is all moot, because their is no evidence that SCO's IP is in the kernel. So again, I really can't see how you disagree with fact.

If they hadn't been releasing their own version, I would agree that SCO is right, but the fact is, they knew what they were doing. Indeed, they claim the things that Linux does (and they knew what it did because they sold it) COULD NOT be possible without access to SCO code.

Obviously, it wasn't apparent, because even they didn't find out until how many years after they have been in this business?

Jason Hi Jason, I agree. And the FSF has legally notified SCO, by process server, that the FSF as parent foundation of the GPL, That SCO must identify any code SCO believes to be improperly in the GPL'd kernel. They destroy their own case by refusing to co-operate with the FSF. The FSF are the folks MOST responsible for the purity of GPL code. they have offered to remove any code SCO claims is improper, without argument, and negotiate later as to true ownership. What more could SCO want from the GPL/GNU/LINUX world. They may still have a beef with IBM, but WE have offered to fix the prob as SCO defines it without demand of payment or compensation fer cripes sake!!

PeterB -- -- Proud to use SuSE Linux since 5.2 Loving using SuSE Linux 8.2 MyBlog http://vancampen.org/blog/ --

On Wednesday 28 May 2003 4:15 am, Fergus Wilde wrote: <big snip>

...

Not saying any of this has happened, but it could have and if it did, I can see where SCO would not be at fault.

Damned if I can. Their actions are utterly unprincipled. It might conceivably make some bad sense if the real inventors of these programs / parts of the system desperately needed money to put their mothers through an expensive medical procedure. It's not for that, though, is it? It's because some rich people fancy being a pile richer and think they can pull off a trick at the expense of everyone else. I notice they were happy enough to profit from other people's 'intellectual property' when they were selling their own, signally unsuccesful distro.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. *IF* IBM did what SCO alledges, and snuck a little SCO code into the linux kernel, I do not think it behooves SCO to scrutinize the linux kernel everytime a release is made. It would be a gigantic task and they wouldn't be expecting to see any code. (because IBM was contractually bound to protect it). *THEREFORE*, I don't feel that SCO releasing their own distro with code in it would hurt their case *UNTIL* they discover that it contains illicit (SCO) code. At that point, they stop the distribution. The above paragraphs say nothing of what I think of their actions. They are just my take on a possible scenario. I think they are total SCOm-bags and I have my name on the SCO-sue-me list. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Bruce S. Marshall bmarsh@bmarsh.com Bellaire, MI 05/28/03 09:37 + +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ "Individualists unite!"

On Wednesday 28 May 2003 15:43, Bruce Marshall wrote:

<big snip> *THEREFORE*, I don't feel that SCO releasing their own distro with code in it would hurt their case *UNTIL* they discover that it contains illicit (SCO) code. At that point, they stop the distribution.

The above paragraphs say nothing of what I think of their actions. They are just my take on a possible scenario. I think they are total SCOm-bags and I have my name on the SCO-sue-me list.

I'm not sure that I would entirely agree with you Bruce. Obviously neither of us are the judge in the case, however the case is not just about whether IBM violated agreements. Caldera has **threatened** customers in saying that that they (the customers) *could* be using something illegally and therefore Caldera *could* seek action against them. It is even more ludicrous to expect every company to look through every single file and check every single app to ensure that it is 100% legal. So if Caldera is making its customers and the customers of every other Linux distro liable for not having checked every single line of code, then Caldera should be equally liable for the consequences of **their** not checking. My two cents. regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.

On Wednesday 28 May 2003 10:58 pm, John LeMay wrote:

...

It is even more ludicrous to expect every company to look through every single file and check every single app to ensure that it is 100% legal.

I'm on the fence on this one. I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that companies using Linux may actually be liable in this case if in fact SCO proves their case (which I highly doubt). There are a couple legal reasonings that I considered when thinking this over. First, if I purchase an item and it turns out the item was stolen, (here in the US) I am still guilty of possesion of stolen property.

Well, no offense. But that's rather simplistic. If your caught with stolen merchandise you can be "charged" with possession of stolen property. But getting "convicted" of it is another matter. In the US two things have to happen in order to prove an act is criminal. A) motive, the "intent" to commit a specific action or circumstance to an end. In otherwords, you go to a garage sale. The owner is moving and is selling things dirt cheap (not uncommon for say... service men that have gotten their orders, etc). Now you see a very nice bicycle. It looks as if it could be worth a lot of money. But this guy appears in a hurry and you have no "reasonable expectation" to think that there is any thing suspicious. So, you buy this bike for $50. Now, a week latter some apparently irrate guy claims you have his stolen bike. They check the serial numbers and sure enough it's stolen. You don't go to jail. You can opt to give the bike back or the police will confiscate it for trial evidence and then you woulf be wise to file a report related to the fence that sold you the stolen bike - no intent is present and there is no criminal motive. (this can even extend to homicide. aka death by misadventure, etc...). B) Opportunity. In this scenario it is mute since you were at the at the garage sale and the "opportunity" arose in the natural occurance of events. On the otherhand, if I threaten to beat the pulp out of someone but do it on the phone from another state. An individual filing a case of assualt would not have a case because I am not in a location to carry out my threats and therefore have no "opportunity". But if I threaten to beat the pulp out of someone while standing in front of them then a charge (if corroborated) would be prosecutable and like enforced. Now in the matter of civil torts it's different. But in this argument it must still be proven that there was both a knowledge and intent based on said knowledge that violating a patent or copyright by including it in a service or product would or did occur. Then it can be upheld that this was an offense and remediation would like be granted by the courts. However, if the kernel developers, or moreover, the vendors and clients had no knowledge of any wrong doing and were acting out of "good faith" then it would be hard to prove those individuals responsible. It would however be as the guy that sold the bike to the patron, that he knew the origins and proceeded regardless. If someone at IBM knew that they were doing this then it is a case of remediation. And if the vendor (say SuSE or IBM) though not actively engaged in the act itself, but knowingly distributing this code for profit SCO has a very good case... The problem is proven both the existance, the intent, and who had or had not the opportunity to carry out this act in spite of knowledge to the contrary. It is not either an issue of ignorance of the law. Your correct in that assumption. But it relies on criminal or deceitful behavior to get a conviction. Or in the SCO case how much money and from who. Cheers, Curtis.