|By Linux News Desk||
|April 29, 2004 12:00 AM EDT||
"These corporations," he continued, "will ultimately reverse support for the GPL and will pursue a more responsible direction."
Now it appears that the only one who was mistaken was Darl McBride himself, because in SCO's latest U.S. District Court filing in the ongoing SCO vs IBM saga, SCO has dropped its "affirmative defense" that the GNU General Public License (GPL) is unconstitutional.
The ever-reliable Groklaw.net site notes that in this filing, SCO Group has dropped this and four other of its earlier allegations. Pamela Jones, Groklaw founder and editor, lists them as follows:
It isn't known whether the Honorable Dale A. Kimball, the judge in charge of the case, is a Groklaw reader, but there seems little doubt that a change of heart this significant will not go unnoticed in a hurry. As Jones notes, SCO no longer suggests that the GPL violates the export laws or copyright law or antitrust law, either.
The SCO vs IBM case has generated more newsprint and Web commentary than any other Linux issue in the past 12 months. Earlier this month McBride was still advancing various reasons why he felt SCO could still win its case, but it may be that with the recent announcement by BayStar Capital that it wants its investment back - news that caused a 50% drop in the SCOX share price - SCO Group's McBride will need to re-think more than just his "unconstitutional" claim.
Some members of the community are going so far as to suggest that it is a shame that the GPL will now not be tested in court. By dropping its claim before it got as far as getting ruled on, one worry is that this might clear the way for SCO to continue pushing the "GPL-is-unconstitutional" line in speeches, letters to Congress, their other lawsuits and the like.
in a February interview with LinuxWorld Magazine editor-in-chief Kevin Bedell asked Eben Moglen, Professor of Law at Columbia University and General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation about his opinion of SCO's statements regrding the validity of the GNU General Public License, or GPL.
Here was Moglen's response, now completely vindicated by SCO's about-turn:
Moglen, it seems, was spot-on.
"As to the actual substance of any claim that the GPL is an invalid copyright permission, it's foolish.
The GPL is not some contractual example of what these days is called a license in the IP world. The GPL is an example of a permission, what we used to call a license . If you take an ordinary first-year property class in law school, which I have sometimes taught, the word license is used in a particular way to describe permission to use real property.
The traditional example of the license is my invitation to you to come to dinner at my house. If I invite you to dinner and the minute you walk over my threshold I sue you for trespassing, you go to the judge and you say "Judge, I wasn't trespassing, I had a license to be there. He invited me to dinner." That's license - the unilateral permission to be on, or use, or possess, or do something about property.
That's what copyright license used to mean before the late 20th century - a unilateral permission. The GPL is a unilateral permission. It says, we as copyright holders have the exclusive rights under the law to copy, modify, and distribute this work. But we permit you, the licensee, to do any of those things. Please note that your right to redistribute extends only to redistribution, whether of modified or unmodified versions of this work, under this license.
That's all. It says: You're permitted to do these things. And if you want to redistribute, you're permitted to redistribute so long as you use this license and this license only.
There is no promise on the other side, no contract. There's nothing to be invalid in this story. We're simply giving permission.
And there's nothing in the copyright law, or for that matter, as SCO has even more wildly suggested, in the Constitution of the United States, which prevents us from giving permission to people to perform acts which would otherwise be unperformable under copyright law.
People give permission for use of copyrighted material every day, of all sorts, and there is no case anywhere that suggests that the giving of broad permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute copyrighted material can somehow fall afoul of the copyright act or the U.S. Constitution."
SCO's arguments, if they are to be dignified by the word argument, concerning the invalidity of the GPL are just invalid. They're meant to scare people."
|Jean Marc 06/01/04 05:49:57 PM EDT|
"Sun will soon have a proprietary linux compatible OS that is enhanced with all sorts of Microsoft technology. That's going to be hard to compete against."
LOL, and you think that people will actually use that stuff? Of course not, they will (rightly) avoid it like a deadly disease... Commercial sharks still do not understand the phylosophy of Open Source. It's FREE as in FREEDOM, not as in GRATIS... The commercial sharks are just plain dead meat, their reign is over. They have to accept it and get on with their lives.
|daniel wallace 04/30/04 12:15:37 PM EDT|
The intellectual property lawyers at Sun, Oracle, IBM,
Every IP lawyer worth his salt is intimately familiar with
The courts have at times found it difficult to discern
"Activities other than copying, distribution and
The first prong of the preemption test asks: does the subject matter concern copyrights? I believe everyone will concede the GPL covers copyrights enumerated in sec. 106 of the copyright act.
The second prong asks: is there a claim other than violation
Presto! Instant preemption. All that beautiful GPL'd code
In case your wondering why those proprietary companies don't
That's why the FSF has so far convinced potential defendants
That's where SCO or some other proxy comes in. SCO is dead
Sun will soon have a proprietary linux compatible OS that is
|Fecal Extrusion 04/30/04 09:31:46 AM EDT|
>> Daaaaarl commented on 30 April 2004:
Daaaaarl, let me tell you... You can thank a stupid Canadian
I'm going to laugh watching the slowly dissolving entity
I hope a lot of Linux friendly businesses and investment
|Fecal Extrusion 04/30/04 09:19:16 AM EDT|
David Boies (SCO lawyer) must be like a moth drawn to a flame.
If I were David Boies, I'd be embarrassed and hiding.
|SCOwhat? 04/30/04 06:25:08 AM EDT|
Thanks for the url, FollowThe$$$$ - I see SCOX is still far above where they were in 2002.
|actuaLLy 04/30/04 06:21:51 AM EDT|
I don't think that Darl McBride sold any stock yet, though lots of the SCO officers have been (legally) selling SCOX stock regularly.
|FollowThe$$$$$ 04/30/04 06:20:38 AM EDT|
The entire SCO/Linux fiasco is a perfect insider stock scheme. Someone has put options on SCO and is laughing his head off: yesterday SCOX hit its new low for the year.
|Daaaaarl 04/30/04 06:16:06 AM EDT|
How can SCO keep this up? With all this idiocy, it would seem SCO are doomed. How could any company maintain with this much erosion to their credibility?
|iabervon 04/30/04 06:14:13 AM EDT|
They can just drop claims from the IBM lawsuit without consequences in it. However, they'll have to answer for it in the Red Hat lawsuit. I bet Red Hat will jump on this as a reason to restart that lawsuit, since SCO made a claim that damaged Red Hat's business and that they no longer intend to support. The judge had put the case on hold because SCO was going to try to prove their claims in the IBM case; now they don't seem interested in doing so, so they've essentially lost the bit of the IBM case relevant to the Red Hat case.
For that matter, that was supposed to be an affirmative defense against IBM's copyright infringement countersuit. If they can't come up with some other justification for their massive piracy of IBM's work, IBM is in the position to demand the SCO either GPL its putative IP or pay all of its assets in damages.
|I Agree 04/30/04 06:12:11 AM EDT|
How can they make claims and drop them like that? No consequences??
There are corporations that weren't choosing linux or were delaying programs because of this .. there were real losses. It's just wrong that you can make risk-free arbitrary claims and accusations as scare and/or FUD to try to advance your agenda .. without worry of consequences.
|For the Record 04/30/04 06:09:16 AM EDT|
Darl has claimed to own AIX and IBM code many times:
"SCO is in the enviable position of owning the UNIX operating system," said Darl McBride, president and CEO, SCO, in an interview with eWeek Thursday. "It is clear from our stand point that we have an extremely compelling case against IBM. SCO has more than 30,000 contracts with UNIX licensees and upholding these contracts is as important today as the day they were signed."
[...] "IBM has been happily giving part of the AIX code away to the Linux community, but the problem is that they don't own the AIX code," he said. "And so it's a huge problem for us. We have been talking to IBM in this regard since early December and have reached an impasse. This was thus the only way forward for us."
"Yesterday I had a request from a $28 billion company, an IBM customer, who sent us a request asking to see the AIX source code and the derivative work that came out of that. It is crystal clear to us here that certain parts of IBM are regularly reinforcing that we do have pretty strong ownership of the AIX code base,"
Darl McBride, 2003-03-07
Darl McBride, SCO's CEO since June, said in an interview this morning that the lawsuit was inspired by public comments made recently by IBM executives who have allegedly said they're moving features from IBM's AIX Unix into Linux to benefit enterprise customers as part of IBM's Linux strategy. The problem with that, McBride said, is IBM doesn't own AIX, but licenses it through SCO.
"It goes to the heart of confidentiality agreements in AIX contracts," he said. "IBM has been publicly saying that they're OK putting AIX into open source, that it's not a problem for them," he said. "When you take our valuable intellectual property and say you're going to move it into open source, then we have a major problem."
[...] "This case is about IBM making commitments to us and honoring them."
At one of their conventions this year, an IBM executive stood in front of an audience and said that IBM was going to destroy the value of Unix and move it all over to Linux. They were going to take the know-how, the people, the methods they developed over the years around AIX--which is our licensed version of Unix--and they were going to transport all that in a wholesale fashion over to Linux. Those statements alone caused us alarm. When we dug deeper, we found they, in fact, had been doing that and they were going to do more.
Darl McBride, 2003-06-16
|wepprop 04/30/04 05:59:11 AM EDT|
I see some people, here and elsewhere, making a leap of faith from the fact that SCOX has dropped their unconstitutionality claim from this matter, to concluding
Actually, a cynic like myself would argue, removing that claim from these proceedings prevents that question from being definitively decided against them and thus gives them the opportunity to introduce that very same claim in other
This would be, furthermore, consistent with the methodology of the "Big Lie," which says that the more times people hear a lie, the more often they are to believe it.
|jfabermit 04/30/04 05:57:46 AM EDT|
Assuming that some court finally rules that SCOX lacks the copyrights to UNIX or that Linux is clean anyway, and the rest of their court cases begin to crumble, how long will it be until SCOX sues Tarantella claiming that during the great Unix Licensing and name swap that OldSCO misinformed NewSCO about what exactly they were buying?
I wish I was kidding about this, but as SCO lawsuits go, it wouldn't really even be the most bizarre...
|AffirmativeSchmaffirmative 04/30/04 05:54:48 AM EDT|
This truly is the text book example of how to mess up your own case by becoming befuddled from your own attempt to befuddle others. Some hapless fools, actually no, some hapless criminals they turned out to be.
|dmscvc123 04/30/04 05:53:38 AM EDT|
They'll file a 3rd amended complaint and this time they'll claim that Linux violates Article 17 of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Then if that doesn't work, Darl will call Linux a WMD.
|Just Remember 04/30/04 05:46:30 AM EDT|
Darl smokes crack. Linus Torvalds said so it must be true :-)
|anonymOus 04/30/04 05:42:44 AM EDT|
A legal question: Can someone make a claim in a lawsuit, then drop that claim later on, even though the defendant has made responses/counter-claims to it?
Can you really say "Oops, please ignore what we said before, here is what we really mean?" without sanction?
|sjgibbs 04/30/04 05:40:37 AM EDT|
I think the FSF could cure this issue by issuing a press release to the effect
OTOH that would be stating a negative and could make matters worse.... Ho hum...
SCO is easy to defeat but the damage will be difficult to reconstruct afterwards. We just need to stick at it untill the job is done...
|taitbb 04/30/04 05:38:51 AM EDT|
For SCO, it looks better to remove them now, than have them shot down in october or whenever by a judge. It won't look like a loss that way.
- WebRTC Summit Silicon Valley Call for Papers Now Open
- DevOps Summit Silicon Valley Call for Papers Now Open
- Fanning the Flames of Agile
- WSO2 Guest Speakers at WSO2Con Europe 2014 Will Examine Technology Developments and Best Practices Enabling the Connected Business
- Call for Papers for Cloud Expo 2014 Silicon Valley Opens
- Docker + Stackato: The Perfect Workload Portability Solution
- An API Strategy Is a Business Strategy
- DevOps Summit Power Panel | Is DevOps Really Changing How IT Is Working?
- Cloud Infrastructure for the Real World
- What's Driving Business Technology Spending Disruption?
- Big Data Expo 2014 Silicon Valley Call for Papers Now Open
- SaaS Represents the Commoditization of Business Function
- Global Financial Firms Can Effectively Address Technology Risk Guidelines
- WebRTC Business Models: Building a Web-Based Telecom Co
- Enterprise Cloud Analytics and Business Intelligence
- More Mainstream Businesses Depend on Open Source
- AMAG, HP, ImageWare Systems, March Networks and StrikeForce Discuss Security Solutions in SecuritySolutionsWatch.com Interviews
- MapDB: The Agile Java Database
- WebRTC Summit Silicon Valley Call for Papers Now Open
- DevOps Summit Silicon Valley Call for Papers Now Open
- Strengthen Your Business Reputation with Every Application Interaction
- Intelligent Systems in Transportation
- PEER 1 Hosting to Exhibit at Cloud Expo New York
- Learn How You Can Easily Extend Your Infrastructure with Microsoft Azure
- The i-Technology Right Stuff
- After Ubuntu, Windows Looks Increasingly Bad, Increasingly Archaic, Increasingly Unfriendly
- Linux.SYS-CON.com Exclusive: Linus Discloses *Real* Fathers of Linux
- SCO CEO Posts Open Letter to the Open Source Community
- A Closer Look at Damn Small Linux
- Linus' Top Ten SCO Barbs
- Netscape Co-Founder's 12 Reasons for Growth of Open Source
- Where Are RIA Technologies Headed in 2008?
- Linux.SYS-CON.com Exclusive: What Would UserLinux Look Like?
- *POINT - COUNTERPOINT SPECIAL* What's Wrong with the Open Source Community?
- Why Recovering a Deleted Ext3 File Is Difficult . . .
- Introducing "Cooperative Linux" - Linux for Windows, No Less