General Community > Chit Chat

My rantings on SCO.

(1/3) > >>

[Unknown]:
Please don't construe anything I say here as legal advice.  I'm just going to give opinions on whta SCO is doing.  If anything I say is wrong, please tell me.

As many of you may know, SCO has made it known that they plan to compel users of linux (whether for server or home use.) to pay licensing fees to SCO.  However, the problem with this is that I, simply, see no legal basis for this action.

Let's assume that Linux has code in it from SCO.  In fact, let's go farther and say that almost all of the code was stolen from SCO.
Because people unknowingly bought licenses ($0.00 is still a price.) for this software, they cannot be held liable.  A good example would be if I were to pirate copies of Microsoft Windows 98.  If someone bought a copy of Windows 98 from me, and had no idea it was a copy, there would be no reason to sue them.  That person could sue me, as could Microsoft, but no one could sue that person. (nor could anyone sue Microsoft.)
Going with this analogy, Microsoft is now trying to sue the user who bought Windows 98 from me.  However, they SHOULD be suing me for the loss in profit I caused them.

By no means can an end user be held liable, as far as I understand the law (which I admit may not be completely, because I have not even been to college.) and as such, you cannot charge the end users for owning software they had no idea was illegal.

Another example is... let's say SMF made it big, and was really making a place for itself on the internet.  Next, let's assume Microsoft (always interested in getting a better more monopolistic grip on things.) wants to buy SMF for some sum, and because we're all broke volunteers we eventually sell it for a kazillion dollars.  (this is all hypothetical.)  Micrsoft would not, in this situation, be able to take people's copies of SMF away.  They could begin charging for new copies, but they could not charge for old ones, which were already sold.

While ignorance is by no means bliss, if the users did their due diligence (which they did.) there's no reason they shuld have to pay anything.

I've also heard that SCO seems to think when you download linux, you are recieving the software, and not a license to use it.  In other words, that you now own linux.  If this were true, the above would be false - because in that case, since you now own the software itself, you would be violating the law.  However, this is not the case.  Even with linux and other opensource software, you are recieving a LICENSE to use, modify, and distribute the software.  While the rights given to you are almost as numerous as those given to an owner, you still are not an owner.  If you were an owner, you could change the copyright or license on the software because you own it.  But you can't - because you don't.  This argument is rediculous.

SCO also seems a fan of this "there's something of mine in your house, but I won't tell you what it is and you have to pay me for it" policy makes sense.  If they won't tell us what's in the code, then there is no reason for us to think they aren't just blowing smoke.  And when/if they do tell us, the code will be removed.  You cannot sue someone for having something of yours in their house if you won't even tell them what it is - what if you planted it in there yourself?
Further, the second the mention anything - as they will eventually have to in court - it will be removed or changed so it is not in violation.  Surely this is just, because if I give whatever of yours was in my house (say your book.) back to you, right away and as soon as I was told it WAS yours, no harm has been done.  And this will happen, and then... what is SCO suing about?  What can they say is wrong with linux then, and what can they use to take money from linux users?

If SCO wins, which I sincerely doubt, the very first thing I will do is go to the library and lose something like a laptop there.  Or maybe I will put it down and wait for someone to come and pick it up.  In a week's time, I will sue them for having my laptop.  I will then cite the SCO case as precedent.

-[Unknown]

Killer Possum:
I think you pretty much hit it on the nail there [UNKNOWN], the end user in no way shape or form should be held liable for using something they didn't know was "stolen". It should be the middle man. But in either case I think that SCO should just drop it.

I myself use Linux on another machine and I can guarantee you that if SCO try's anything with me there is going to be a counter sue, I will not let them try to do jack to me :-\

[Unknown]:
For those of you who don't know the issue, basically....

SCO bought rights to a certain Unix, and they are claiming that code from their unix is in linux.  They are suing, and they want to charge $700 an installation for servers, and like $300 per home install of linux.

-[Unknown]

Tony Reid:

--- Quote from: [Unknown] on September 30, 2003, 08:21:24 PM --- if I were to pirate copies of Microsoft Windows 98.  If someone bought a copy of Windows 98 from me, and had no idea it was a copy, there would be no reason to sue them.  That person could sue me, as could Microsoft, but no one could sue that person. (nor could anyone sue Microsoft.)
Going with this analogy, Microsoft is now trying to sue the user who bought Windows 98 from me.  However, they SHOULD be suing me for the loss in profit I caused them.
--- End quote ---

Hmmm.... it does make me wonder....

Here in the UK you can be arrested for recieving stolen goods, even if you were not aware they were stolen.  But If you can prove that you took reasonable steps to make sure the product wasnt stolen - then the case is arguable.

SCO shouting that its stolen doesnt help the 'reasonable steps' example.

So in theory, in the UK - its possible for SCO to have every linux user arrested :(

Tim:

--- Quote ---Big Blue has accused SCO, which is pursing legal action against Linux users, of infringing IBM copyrights   

IBM has expanded its Linux-related countersuit against SCO Group -- adding a new twist to the case by accusing the software maker of infringing on IBM copyrights.        

Big Blue also criticised recent efforts to indemnify Linux users, saying such plans are of limited value and go against the core values of open-source software.

IBM, one of the biggest corporate proponents of the open-source Linux operating system, came under attack from SCO early this year when the software maker filed a $3bn (£1.81bn) lawsuit accusing Big Blue of illegally incorporating SCO-controlled Unix code into Linux software distributed by IBM. The case has gone on to challenge the foundations of the Linux movement, with SCO promising to bill Linux users and threatening legal action against companies and individuals who don't pony up.

IBM filed counterclaims against SCO in August, charging SCO with violating IBM patents, engaging in unfair trade practices, and violating the General Public License (GPL) terms under which SCO distributed software both as SCO and in its former incarnation as Linux seller Caldera International.

In an expanded counterclaim filed late on Thursday in US District Court for Utah, IBM added charges of copyright violation based on the GPL terms. The claim cites seven pieces of copyrighted software IBM contributed to Linux under the GPL. By violating the terms of the GPL, IBM states, SCO violated IBM's copyrights.

"IBM granted SCO and others a nonexclusive licence to the above-listed copyrighted contributions to Linux on the terms set out in the GPL and only on the terms set out in the GPL," according to the counterclaim. "SCO has infringed and is infringing IBM's copyrights by copying, modifying, sublicensing and/or distributing Linux products except as expressly provided under the GPL."

A new counterclaim also accuses SCO of "promissory estoppel" -- damage caused from a broken promise -- saying IBM made important business decisions based on SCO's promise to adhere to the GPL.

The new filing adds a claim for declaratory judgment, seeking a ruling from the court that would state, among other things, that "SCO is not entitled to impose restrictions on the copying, modifying or distributing of programs distributed by it under the GPL except as set out in the GPL."

In a related matter, Bob Samson, vice president of systems sales at IBM, defended Big Blue's decision not to indemnify Linux customers, as Hewlett-Packard offered earlier this week.

In a memo to IBM sales representatives, Samson said such indemnity offers provided little real protection for customers and restrict their ability to participate in the open-source community.

"The typical approach to indemnity... we believe runs fundamentally counter to the Linux value proposition," he wrote. "Linux is developed to open standards and taps into the development power of many companies and individuals. Customers buy Linux principally for the quality of the operating system, broad vendor choice in hardware, distribution and maintenance, and freedom to modify source code. Most indemnities are narrowly drawn and are often invalidated by customer activities, such as making modifications or combining the indemnified product with other code, which are central to the vitality of open source."

HP responded with a statement defending its indemnification offer.

"The vast majority of HP Linux customers do not modify the Linux source code," according to the statement. "Contrary to IBM's comment, they are of course free to continue to view the source code. In the event of modification to the code, HP would work with those customers on a case-by-case basis. IBM seems to be trying to drive a wedge where none exists. HP is driving Linux in the real world by standing by its customers."
--- End quote ---
From zdnet.co.uk

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page