Stop Microsoft

All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: mobrien_12 on 15 August 2003, 02:02

Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: mobrien_12 on 15 August 2003, 02:02: Slashdot News Story (http://slashdot.org/articles/03/08/14/1521256.shtml?tid=106&tid=123&tid=185&tid=187&tid=88&tid=99)

excerpt:

chrullrich writes "According to heise (German, fishbait), SCO's chief counsel Mark Heise (unrelated) of Boies, Schiller and Flexner has declared that the GPL violates the US copyright law and is thus null and void. SCO's legal position is actually a little too crazy to believe: The GPL allows unlimited copies, the copyright law allows one. Therefore, the GPL is invalid. Apparently, they try to argue that the copyright law, in giving consumers the right to make one backup of their software without any permission from the copyright holder, outlaws any contractual agreement that allows users to make more than one copy."

I wonder if their stock goes up again.

[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: jasonlane on 15 August 2003, 02:24: Oh OK then if $CO says it's true.....when do I buy a license???

Pricks
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: hm_murdock on 15 August 2003, 02:43: FAGGOTS
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: Great_Satan on 15 August 2003, 03:01: How did SCO get these rights? It says here in my Unix textbook*:

quote:

The UNIX operating system was developed at Bell Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey -- one of the largest research facilities in the world. Since the original design and implementation of the UNIX operating system by Ken Thompson in 1969, many people have contributed to it. The most recent release and the subject of this book is UNIX System V.
System V is the culmination of the effort of many people over many years and the consolidation of many different strains of UNIX, most notably AT&T Bell Labs UNIX and the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD) UNIX.

*A Practical Guide to UNIX System V by Mark G. Sobell copyright 1985 page 2

BTW, it doesn't matter if SCO declares the GPL invalid. What matters is what happens in court. For example from a related intellectual property area I'm more familiar with, every time someone is accused of infringing on a patent, the knee jerk response of the alledged infringer is to say the patent is invalid. Then the alledged infringer has to prove it is invalid by collecting copies of references to show the patent is invalid (ie. see 35 USC 102 and 103 which are used most often to reject claims by patent (US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)) examiners and even judges) and to get the patent re-examined by the USPTO and/or prove it in court.

[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: Great_Satan ]
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: TheQuirk on 15 August 2003, 03:17: It was purchased.
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: Great_Satan on 15 August 2003, 03:23: If you look at this link
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/11.html (http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/11.html)
it appears SCO contributed code to Linux which they seem to want to copyright. Can't people get around that somehow by writing new code?
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: Great_Satan on 15 August 2003, 03:30: Linus Torvalds is supposed to be the creater of Linux. Maybe he can sue SCO. For one thing maybe Linus Torvalds can trademark the name Linux (if it isn't already) and require SCO to license the use of the name Linux.
http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/torvalds/ (http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/torvalds/)

[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: Great_Satan ]

[ August 14, 2003: Message edited by: Great_Satan ]
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: mobrien_12 on 15 August 2003, 04:47: quote:
Originally posted by Great_Satan:
Linus Torvalds is supposed to be the creater of Linux. Maybe he can sue SCO.

Linus does have a trademark on Linux. I don't think he will sue SCO unless all else fails.
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: suselinux on 15 August 2003, 05:35: Don't forget guys this is still Big Blue against a puddle called SCO

what ever kind of Lawyers SCO can offord IBM can get double, triple, quadruple

besides what else is SCO going to say after being counter sued by IBM.

SCO will fight to the bitter, sour end because they have nothing to lose they wouldn't have survived another year if not for this law suit.

besides we have a penguin and SCO has some stupid tree and penguins eat trees.....oh wait, those are beavers. :D
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: Great_Satan on 15 August 2003, 15:03: This looks like it.

Word Mark LINUX
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: computer operating system software to facilitate computer use and operation. FIRST USE: 19940802. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19940802
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74560867
Filing Date August 15, 1994
Published for Opposition June 13, 1995
Change In Registration CHANGE IN REGISTRATION HAS OCCURRED
Registration Number 1916230
Registration Date September 5, 1995
Owner (REGISTRANT) Croce, William R. Della, Jr. INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 33 Snow Hill St. Boston MASSACHUSETTS 02113
(LAST LISTED OWNER) TORVALDS, LINUS INDIVIDUAL Assignee of FINLAND 5774 CANNES PLACE SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA 95138

Assignment Recorded ASSIGNMENT RECORDED
Attorney of Record ROBERT T. DAUNT
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

You can go here
http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm (http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm)
and search for more trademarks related to Linux and by owner (ie. Linus Torvalds).

[ August 15, 2003: Message edited by: Great_Satan ]
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: M51DPS on 15 August 2003, 18:56: Beavers don't actually eat the trees you know, and SCO is just desperately clawing for any way they can to win the case.
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: Faust on 15 August 2003, 20:19: Tux can eat whatever he wants. Me and my team of trainers are teaching the little fella to embrace the warrior spirit, and any second now (once we find a large enough source of uranium) a giant mutated very pissed off penguin is going to go KICK THESE FUCKED UP WANKERS RIGHT IN THEIR GODDAMN HEADS UNTIL THEY DIE AND GO TO PROPRIEATRY HELL! And then a Gnu is gunna piss on their graves.
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: hm_murdock on 16 August 2003, 07:45: NEWS FLASH

The Jimmy James has DECLARED THAT SCO IS A GIANT DOGPILE and is therefore IN VIOLATION OF MY COOLRIGHT LAWS. Yes... the fact that everyone suspected all along has been MADE TRUE by the KING OF THE WORLD JIMMY JAMES.

Man... who's got the rusty chains? SCO needs a beatin' and a burnin to the ground. I'm going to shove their dicks into a meat grinder and make them all eat PENIS SAUSAGES.
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: gump420 on 16 August 2003, 08:33: quote:
Originally posted by Great_Satan:
If you look at this link
http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/11.html (http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/11.html)
it appears SCO contributed code to Linux which they seem to want to copyright. Can't people get around that somehow by writing new code?

SCO technically already has copyright on any code they wrote. This is because you automatically have copyright on any work that you create.

However, by distributing their code under the terms of the GPL, they gave anybody who wants it a free and unlimited licnese to use that code in any manner they see fit.

Morons.
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: Great_Satan on 17 August 2003, 21:30: You also need to include a copyright notice on your product if you want copyright protection.
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: solo on 18 August 2003, 07:03: quote:
Originally posted by Great_Satan:
You also need to include a copyright notice on your product if you want copyright protection.

No. Incorrect. Do your homework before posting please. Most countries today (U.S.,U.K. etc) do not require a copyright notice at all. If you made it, it's yours.
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: raptor on 20 August 2003, 02:27: get your whole wrap on those issues here .http://news.com.com/2009-1016_3-5065533.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed (http://news.com.com/2009-1016_3-5065533.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed)
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: Great_Satan on 20 August 2003, 05:25: The various news articles say different things, too. You need to read them carefully.

[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: Great_Satan ]
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: raptor on 20 August 2003, 11:09: quote:
Originally posted by Great_Satan:
The various news articles say different things, too. You need to read them carefully.

[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: Great_Satan ]

i didnt read them. i just thought you that are interested in this SCO controversy would like to read those.
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: Calum on 20 August 2003, 16:01: quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy James is COOL:
NEWS FLASH

The Jimmy James has DECLARED THAT SCO IS A GIANT DOGPILE and is therefore IN VIOLATION OF MY COOLRIGHT LAWS. Yes... the fact that everyone suspected all along has been MADE TRUE by the KING OF THE WORLD JIMMY JAMES.

Man... who's got the rusty chains? SCO needs a beatin' and a burnin to the ground. I'm going to shove their dicks into a meat grinder and make them all eat PENIS SAUSAGES.

somehow it seems like a lot of redundant effort to actually mince the penises and then make them into sausages, why not simply cut out the middle man and make them eat penis sausages the way nature intended?
Title: SCO declares GPL invalid.
Post by: raptor on 21 August 2003, 21:55: go linus: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227128,00.asp (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227128,00.asp)

the question -

quote:
eWEEK: For its part though, SCO has said that there are so many lines of code, and a variety of applications and devices that use that code, that simply removing the offending code would not be technically feasible or possible and would not solve the problem. Do you agree?

the response -

quote:
Torvalds: They are smoking crack. Their slides said there are [more than] 800,000 lines of SMP code that are "infringing," and they are just off their rocker. The SMP code was written by a number of Linux people I know well (I did a lot of the SMP IRQ scalability myself, personally), so their claims are just ludicrous. And they claim they own JFS [journaled file system technology] too. Whee. They're not shy about claiming ownership of other people's code