Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
SCO-IBM Vs Timeline Inc-Microsoft : Better off with Linux
By on
May 31, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
NZheretic writes, "If you are concerned over the treat of lawsuits over intellectual
property then you are actually in a better legal position using
GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.
While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial
evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has
already won a US
Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in
another contract dispute.
Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option when licensing Timeline Inc's Data base technology. That license puts developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.
Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers an absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA provide the developer and end user with no protection against threat from current or future intellectual property lawsuits.
"However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.
"The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since SCO claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code SCO has distributed and any GPL'ed derivative, the same implicit licence and right to SCO's intellectual property the code imposes upon.
"SCO has acknowledged deals with Suse and Lindows to distribute SCO's intellectual property in GPL'ed Linux, but the GPL license does not grant anyone or any organization the right to append extra terms and conditions upon the recipients of the GPL licensed source code.
"It is very easy to effectively fold the current development branches of the Linux kernel and any other GPL'ed code back into SCO's distributed GPL'ed sources. This would grant the same implicit license for the infringed SCO intellectual property to the all the current development.
"You are in a better legal position using the GPL'ed Linux platform and other GPL'ed software, than you are using Microsoft's or any other closed source software."
The opinions in this article belong to its author, and may or may not be shared by NewsForge editors and OSDN management.
Comments
on SCO-IBM Vs Timeline Inc-Microsoft : Better off with LinuxNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
For the rest of the story...
again, go to the OSI site and read the OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint. It has the most frequently updated LINUX and UNIX related information from Eric Raymond. For the facts just go here every few days and check for the latest revision(s).
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.htm
again, go to the OSI site and read the OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint. It has the most frequently updated LINUX and UNIX related information from Eric Raymond. For the facts just go here every few days and check for the latest revision(s).
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.htm
Re:The rest of the story... updated frequently.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 01, 2003 02:13 PM
There's a letter missing in your URL:
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.htm is mostly a leftover from DOS 8+3 times<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.htm is mostly a leftover from DOS 8+3 times<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
Re:The rest of the story... updated frequently.
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on June 01, 2003 02:38 PM
Yah. I can just see Eric Raymond writing his amicus brief using Word and saving it with an '.HTM' filetype. Perhaps when pigs fly and Satan dons ice skates.
Yes it is safer. The code is out for everyone to see, timings can be checked and defense in court is much easier. Closed code is suspicious by nature and you have to take special measures to prove it is yours. If you go closed source, you essentially agree to protect the code with secrecy only and give up almost any right to accuse others in stealing it. The only case where you have a chance is when you can prove an actual BREAK IN. That is what works in court. Mitnick case showed it. That's why SCO has ZERO chance. That's why Timeline used patents and not copyrights. Software copyrights are perfectly suited for OSS and are very poor protection for closed source. You either go OSS or write some patents because in the closed source world there are LARGE THIEVES armed with spies, technology and whats not... Of course patents are such a mess that cases are very hard, expensive and uncertain. Bad chice IMHO...
see:
http://perens.com/Articles/Patents.html
"Arguments for killing software and business-method patents abound. I'll list a few:
-If the existence of software and business system patents doesn't actually help to advance science and the useful arts, then they are constitutionally unjustified.
Software patents are all on applications of an extremely versatile hardware device called a "computer". But then isn't the computer, not its software, the thing that should have been patented?
-The 20-year term of software patents is generally much longer than the useful lifetime of the invention. This circumvents the constitutional requirement that patents have a limited term, because the invention is so obsolete as to be without any remaining value at all by the time it reaches the public domain.
-The monopoly that business-method patents create on a particular form of business can constitute a violation of the anti-trust laws.
-If other countries start accepting software and business method patents, they will in effect be creating a U.S.A. Tax paid by their own citizens. Those countries would just take all of the patent royalties paid by their own companies and send them to the U.S.A., where the software and business-method patent owners predominantly are today.
But the best argument for this essay is that software patents block Free Software development. Today, they are a nuisance, tomorrow they could be much more. There are companies that see Free Software, especially GNU/Linux, as an interloper to be shut down, a competitor to be eliminated. Some of these companies have increased the rate at which they file new patents. It's not impossible that these companies and their business partners could start going after Free Software developers, en masse, with patent infringement lawsuits. Since essentially none of us can afford to defend ourselves, most developers would be forced to cave in, withdraw their software, and stop participating in Free Software development. We must be ready with a defense, before that day comes".
http://perens.com/Articles/Patents.html
"Arguments for killing software and business-method patents abound. I'll list a few:
-If the existence of software and business system patents doesn't actually help to advance science and the useful arts, then they are constitutionally unjustified.
Software patents are all on applications of an extremely versatile hardware device called a "computer". But then isn't the computer, not its software, the thing that should have been patented?
-The 20-year term of software patents is generally much longer than the useful lifetime of the invention. This circumvents the constitutional requirement that patents have a limited term, because the invention is so obsolete as to be without any remaining value at all by the time it reaches the public domain.
-The monopoly that business-method patents create on a particular form of business can constitute a violation of the anti-trust laws.
-If other countries start accepting software and business method patents, they will in effect be creating a U.S.A. Tax paid by their own citizens. Those countries would just take all of the patent royalties paid by their own companies and send them to the U.S.A., where the software and business-method patent owners predominantly are today.
But the best argument for this essay is that software patents block Free Software development. Today, they are a nuisance, tomorrow they could be much more. There are companies that see Free Software, especially GNU/Linux, as an interloper to be shut down, a competitor to be eliminated. Some of these companies have increased the rate at which they file new patents. It's not impossible that these companies and their business partners could start going after Free Software developers, en masse, with patent infringement lawsuits. Since essentially none of us can afford to defend ourselves, most developers would be forced to cave in, withdraw their software, and stop participating in Free Software development. We must be ready with a defense, before that day comes".
Sofware patents are messy. I was not defending them. I was just trying to say that OSS is safer both from copyright and patent point of view as of today. Should software patents be abolished? Yes, but that will require also other changes in the IP laws. It is an entirely different topic...
I simply pointed to the common mistake to consider closed source "easier in court". In fact it's much harder.
I simply pointed to the common mistake to consider closed source "easier in court". In fact it's much harder.
While SCO no longer sells Linux, in order to support their current user base, their ftp server still has the Linux source RPMS as required by GPL. So even as they argue that they no longer sell Linux, they are distributing the (disputed) kernel source. They have no choice; failure to distribute the source will place them in violation of the GPL, but distributing it (with the IP they are calling into question) undermines their position. I think they've effectively got themselves in a lose-lose position.
Based on
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1112253,00.a<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> p
and copied from comment at
http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/03/06/01/133<nobr>9<wbr></nobr> 250.shtml?tid=48
(please remove any spaces in above urls before using)
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
It is no stretch of logic to assume that if Novell were due 95% of license fees gained from what SCO can get from the LINUX users that both 95% and 5% could be some very round figures.
Hmmm, which side of the mouth is Novell speaking from these days?
-The side that is looking at the possibility of getting 95% of all potential LINUX volume (if by some corrupt miracle that SCO would win a suit where SCO is on all the wrong sides of the facts)...
-OR the side where Novell has a sole money source based on their own LINUX distribution and other non-unix related IP, etc?
Q: IS Novell working us by using SCO in a good cop/bad cop enforcement play from their postion? 95%? Can they be playing this hand that they are seeing as being dealt from a deck that they have set up? Or is Novell honestly and wholeheartedly in the LINUX camp these days? Let's hope that they are! AND one would hope that any court agreements that they arrive after the fur starts to fly is one that treats SCO as a foe (and not a 95% paying friend)!
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1112253,00.a<nobr>s<wbr></nobr> p
and copied from comment at
http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/03/06/01/133<nobr>9<wbr></nobr> 250.shtml?tid=48
(please remove any spaces in above urls before using)
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
It is no stretch of logic to assume that if Novell were due 95% of license fees gained from what SCO can get from the LINUX users that both 95% and 5% could be some very round figures.
Hmmm, which side of the mouth is Novell speaking from these days?
-The side that is looking at the possibility of getting 95% of all potential LINUX volume (if by some corrupt miracle that SCO would win a suit where SCO is on all the wrong sides of the facts)...
-OR the side where Novell has a sole money source based on their own LINUX distribution and other non-unix related IP, etc?
Q: IS Novell working us by using SCO in a good cop/bad cop enforcement play from their postion? 95%? Can they be playing this hand that they are seeing as being dealt from a deck that they have set up? Or is Novell honestly and wholeheartedly in the LINUX camp these days? Let's hope that they are! AND one would hope that any court agreements that they arrive after the fur starts to fly is one that treats SCO as a foe (and not a 95% paying friend)!
More FUD.
No matter what the outcome of this suit is, no one company is going to be collecting a royalty from every copy of Linux sold in the future.
To do so would be imposing an additional restriction not covered by the GPL. This would be a GPL violation, so distribution would not be allowed under those terms.
If SCO's claim has merrit, it will just mean that the Linux kernel will not be distributable until the problem code is excised. Of course, if this is the case, some companies may be liable for past infringements.
To do so would be imposing an additional restriction not covered by the GPL. This would be a GPL violation, so distribution would not be allowed under those terms.
If SCO's claim has merrit, it will just mean that the Linux kernel will not be distributable until the problem code is excised. Of course, if this is the case, some companies may be liable for past infringements.
Anonymous wrote "If SCO's claim has merrit, it will just mean that the Linux kernel will not be distributable until the problem code is excised".
Read the article again.
If SCO itself has sold or distributed GPL'ed content then SCO must, by the terms of the GPL license, provide an implicit license and grant the right to use the source code under the terms of the GPL.
Read the article again.
If SCO itself has sold or distributed GPL'ed content then SCO must, by the terms of the GPL license, provide an implicit license and grant the right to use the source code under the terms of the GPL.
I think your assumptions are a little off.
It's kind of like the secratary coming out and decalaring her ownership of the office. Obsurd as it is.
It's kind of like the secratary coming out and decalaring her ownership of the office. Obsurd as it is.
It's funny how a Slashdot <A HREF="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=66146&cid=6089659" TITLE="slashdot.org">comment</a slashdot.org> becomes a Newsforge article. Good to know OSDN is putting its money towards high-quality websites.
Take a look at the article dates, bud..
So a News Forge article becomes a slashdot comment. is that better? Maybe if you didn't drone on so long, you could actually write interesting things in more than one location. You post the same comments here, slashdot, zd net, everywhere.
Very tiring, bud.
Very tiring, bud.
There's a difference between a site picking up a story and a person posting the same thing to stories, forums and everything else all over the place. NZHeretic is the 'cut and paste' king.
So does this mean that Timeline will send threatening letters to all users of the offending MS products (as did SCO to known Linux users)? I work for a rather conservative company, where Linux use is limited as is. We got "the" letter from SCO; it's enough to make us mandate a "no more Linux" policy, and there's a possibility of removing existing Linux installations.
Although they would have to sink to SCO's level, I almost wish Timeline would send such letters, just to put Linux back in a better light, or at least reveal the lack of light coming from MS.
Although they would have to sink to SCO's level, I almost wish Timeline would send such letters, just to put Linux back in a better light, or at least reveal the lack of light coming from MS.
http://www.tmln.com/press.htm - is the letter sent
Posted by: David Mohring on June 02, 2003 09:43 PM
Timeline Inc did send out the <A HREF="http://www.tmln.com/press.htm" TITLE="tmln.com">Elegant Memo</a tmln.com> ( <A HREF="http://www.timeline.com/PatentMemo.pdf" TITLE="timeline.com">in PDF format here</a timeline.com> ) to many larger organizations.
If you drop a line to <A HREF="http://www.timeline.com/" TITLE="timeline.com">Timeline Inc</a timeline.com>, I am sure they would be happy to directly forward a copy to your organization.
If you drop a line to <A HREF="http://www.timeline.com/" TITLE="timeline.com">Timeline Inc</a timeline.com>, I am sure they would be happy to directly forward a copy to your organization.
This is the best news I've read today
SCO may have found exactly what they stated: very similar code in their Unix and Linux. Write code in “C” to work with a previously documented standard: Intel 486 architecture, PCI, SCSI, DDR, TCP/IP etc. and the resulting code will be similar. This does not make for copyright infringement.
Oh, SCO has not legally stated that there is copyright infringement, just insinuated that it had occurred. Keeping the “infringement” secret will lengthen the time SCO can be front page news.
My only question is when the buyout occurs: At a high point when SCO looks like it has a material case or on the downside when it starts to lose some court battles. I expect to see a buyout after a court decision, on some minor point, that causes the price to plummet. But who will the buyer be? Stay tuned to the show!
Oh, SCO has not legally stated that there is copyright infringement, just insinuated that it had occurred. Keeping the “infringement” secret will lengthen the time SCO can be front page news.
My only question is when the buyout occurs: At a high point when SCO looks like it has a material case or on the downside when it starts to lose some court battles. I expect to see a buyout after a court decision, on some minor point, that causes the price to plummet. But who will the buyer be? Stay tuned to the show!
If you are concerned over the treat of lawsuits..
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 31, 2003 09:40 PM#