Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: I have not looked closely at the contract SCO has with Boies, Schiller and Flexner or Hatch, James and Dodge. BSF signed up to handle all the legal cases for a what amounts to a fixed fee - tSCOG's appeals are paid for. Of course, they lost in front of a judge, appealed that they were entitled to a jury, lost in front of the jury, and now seem to be appealling that they shouldn't have gotten what they asked for. Love to see how 10th circuit rules on this jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 07/10/2010 05:56 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: I have not looked closely at the contract SCO has with Boies, Schiller and Flexner or Hatch, James and Dodge. BSF signed up to handle all the legal cases for a what amounts to a fixed fee - tSCOG's appeals are paid for. Of course, they lost in front of a judge, appealed that they were entitled to a jury, lost in front of the jury, and now seem to be appealling that they shouldn't have gotten what they asked for. Love to see how 10th circuit rules on this jeff Actually they have 2 law firms, BSF, and Hatch, James and Dodge (Utah). Yes they did pay in advance. Recall, when the jury said that Novell owned the copyrights, they sent a motion to Judge Stewart to vacate that verdict, and the judge denied the motion. The 10th circuit sent the appeal back to Judge Stewart's court, I wonder where they will send the appeal this time, maybe back to Judge Kimball :-). I would suspect that this is only a formality, and they plan to appeal to SCOTUS. Maybe Ralph Yarrow will sponsor another law in Utah that can be applied retroactively. I'm really wondering who is actually driving this whole thing. Is it Judge Cahn (ch. 11 trustee) or BSF, or Yarrow. Remember that Yarrow is the major stockholder (if I recall) and did loan them some significant money in Ch. 11. It's possible that they are trying to dry up the pool so they don't have to pay Novell anything. In any case, what is the next step. Will IBM and Novell try to place SCO in ch 7 again. In any case the saga continues, and Linux is still in jeopardy until this case is finally put to bed. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: Actually they have 2 law firms, BSF, and Hatch, James and Dodge (Utah). Yes they did pay in advance. BSF are the ones handling the lawsuits. They signed up through the appeals process. Recall, when the jury said that Novell owned the copyrights, they sent a motion to Judge Stewart to vacate that verdict, and the judge denied the motion. The 10th circuit sent the appeal back to Judge Stewart's court, I wonder where they will send the appeal this time, maybe back to Judge Kimball :-). Judge Kimball rules as a matter of law the contract was clear, and tSCOG didn't get the copyrights. tSCOG appealed to the 10th circuit that it should be a jury who decide. 10th Circuit ruled ruled that, even if Judge Kimball was right (they actually stated in their decision Novell had compelling arguments), it was for a jury to decide (as tSCOG asked for), and sent it back to the district court, where Judge Kimball recused himself (for reasons I don't recall), so it ended up with Judge Stewart for jury trial. The jury (which tSCOG asked for) ruled tSCOG didn't get the copyrights (probably not helped by Darl testifying they didn't need the copyrights to conduct business under the APA, only for their new extortion scheme). tSCOG appealed to Judge Stewart on the grounds, basically, that the jury they had asked for had to be wrong (to quote a movie line I object on the grounds its damaging to our case). Judge Stewart denied their appeal. Now they're appealing back to 10th Circuit that both the jury (that they asked for) and Judge Stewart must be wrong, because no one could possibly rule against them. My suspicion is the 10th will deny them this time, but IANAL, so who knows? I would suspect that this is only a formality, and they plan to appeal to SCOTUS. I suspect they'll continue to appeal as long as they can. Of course, there's no requirement SCOTUS hear the appeal :) Maybe Ralph Yarrow will sponsor another law in Utah that can be applied retroactively. I'm really wondering who is actually driving this whole thing. Is it Judge Cahn (ch. 11 trustee) or BSF, or Yarrow. That's a great question. Remember that Yarrow is the major stockholder (if I recall) and did loan them some significant money in Ch. 11. He did loan - and if they default or go into Chapter 7, he gets all the assets, with none of the liabilities (IBM suit, etc). They're attempting to sell the Unix agency business (but not the Unixware copyrights) to someone (notice they are claiming in the suit that this couldn't happen, so Novell must have sold them the copyrights). They sold off Me, Inc to Darl (for less than the cost of doing the sale - how that managed I don't know, but the Bankruptcy Court approved it). It's possible that they are trying to dry up the pool so they don't have to pay Novell anything. Supposedly they've set up a trust for an agreed-to amount. We'll see. In any case, what is the next step. Will IBM and Novell try to place SCO in ch 7 again. In any case the saga continues, and Linux is still in jeopardy until this case is finally put to bed. Linux is safe, in my opinion. It's too widely used, and so far tSCOG has presented no evidence (to quote Judge Kimball Is that all you've got?:) jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 07/10/2010 09:13 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: Actually they have 2 law firms, BSF, and Hatch, James and Dodge (Utah). Yes they did pay in advance. BSF are the ones handling the lawsuits. They signed up through the appeals process. Not altogether true (from Groklaw): 07/07/2010 - 881 http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Novell-881.pdf - NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 876 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law, 878 Judgment, 877 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for New Trial, Memorandum Decision filed by SCO Group. Appeals to the USCA for the 10th Circuit. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 1088-1150192. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 07/07/2010) You will notice that this notice is filed by Brent Hatch (Hatch, James and Dodge), not Edward Normand (BSF). Recall, when the jury said that Novell owned the copyrights, they sent a motion to Judge Stewart to vacate that verdict, and the judge denied the motion. The 10th circuit sent the appeal back to Judge Stewart's court, I wonder where they will send the appeal this time, maybe back to Judge Kimball :-). Judge Kimball rules as a matter of law the contract was clear, and tSCOG didn't get the copyrights. tSCOG appealed to the 10th circuit that it should be a jury who decide. 10th Circuit ruled ruled that, even if Judge Kimball was right (they actually stated in their decision Novell had compelling arguments), it was for a jury to decide (as tSCOG asked for), and sent it back to the district court, where Judge Kimball recused himself (for reasons I don't recall), so it ended up with Judge Stewart for jury trial. The jury (which tSCOG asked for) ruled tSCOG didn't get the copyrights (probably not helped by Darl testifying they didn't need the copyrights to conduct business under the APA, only for their new extortion scheme). tSCOG appealed to Judge Stewart on the grounds, basically, that the jury they had asked for had to be wrong (to quote a movie line I object on the grounds its damaging to our case). Judge Stewart denied their appeal. Now they're appealing back to 10th Circuit that both the jury (that they asked for) and Judge Stewart must be wrong, because no one could possibly rule against them. My suspicion is the 10th will deny them this time, but IANAL, so who knows? I would agree here. I'm not sure how much history that the justices will hear in the appeal. I'm sure the Novell attorneys will make sure they remember what they said before. I would suspect that this is only a formality, and they plan to appeal to SCOTUS. I suspect they'll continue to appeal as long as they can. Of course, there's no requirement SCOTUS hear the appeal :) Maybe Ralph Yarrow will sponsor another law in Utah that can be applied retroactively. I'm really wondering who is actually driving this whole thing. Is it Judge Cahn (ch. 11 trustee) or BSF, or Yarrow. That's a great question. Remember that Yarrow is the major stockholder (if I recall) and did loan them some significant money in Ch. 11. He did loan - and if they default or go into Chapter 7, he gets all the assets, with none of the liabilities (IBM suit, etc). They're attempting to sell the Unix agency business (but not the Unixware copyrights) to someone (notice they are claiming in the suit that this couldn't happen, so Novell must have sold them the copyrights). They sold off Me, Inc to Darl (for less than the cost of doing the sale - how that managed I don't know, but the Bankruptcy Court approved it). It's possible that they are trying to dry up the pool so they don't have to pay Novell anything. Supposedly they've set up a trust for an agreed-to amount. We'll see. In any case, what is the next step. Will IBM and Novell try to place SCO in ch 7 again. In any case the saga continues, and Linux is still in jeopardy until this case is finally put to bed. Linux is safe, in my opinion. It's too widely used, and so far tSCOG has presented no evidence (to quote Judge Kimball Is that all you've got?:) While I think that Linux is pretty safe, this is still a club that hangs over it. While most Linux vendors are providing indemnities, as long as SCO has the ability to sue, then there is a bit of doubt. Who owns the copyrights is really the crux of the matter, and very important in the bankruptcy. Essentially they sold the mobile business to Darl. -- Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org Boston Linux and Unix PGP key id: 537C5846 PGP Key fingerprint: 3D1B 8377 A3C0 A5F2 ECBB CA3B 4607 4319 537C 5846 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: On 07/10/2010 09:13 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jerry Feldman g...@blu.org wrote: Actually they have 2 law firms, BSF, and Hatch, James and Dodge (Utah). Yes they did pay in advance. BSF are the ones handling the lawsuits. They signed up through the appeals process. Not altogether true (from Groklaw): 07/07/2010 - 881 http://www.groklaw.net/pdf2/Novell-881.pdf - NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 876 Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law, 878 Judgment, 877 Order on Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, Order on Motion for New Trial, Memorandum Decision filed by SCO Group. Appeals to the USCA for the 10th Circuit. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 1088-1150192. (Hatch, Brent) (Entered: 07/07/2010) You will notice that this notice is filed by Brent Hatch (Hatch, James and Dodge), not Edward Normand (BSF). Thanks. Interesting, as BSF are the paid-up law firm. Linux is safe, in my opinion. It's too widely used, and so far tSCOG has presented no evidence (to quote Judge Kimball Is that all you've got?:) While I think that Linux is pretty safe, this is still a club that hangs over it. While most Linux vendors are providing indemnities, as long as SCO has the ability to sue, then there is a bit of doubt. Who owns the copyrights is really the crux of the matter, and very important in the bankruptcy. Essentially they sold the mobile business to Darl. 1. Remember, everyone has the ability to sue anyone for anything at any time in the US. Whether they'll be successful is a whole 'nother matter ;). 2. The crux is that tSCOG does NOT own the copyrights. I suspect the APA ( Amendment 2) was worded they way it was because NO ONE knows who owns what - the early UNIX history, due to the laws at the time, the ATT monopoly agreements, academic freedom, etc, resulted in lots of folks owning the code, some in the public, some by ATT, some by UC (BSD code), some by whoever contributed. So when Novell sold the agency to SCO (Santa Cruz, not tSCOG), Amendment 2 was, in my opinion, worded such that if it turned out the copyrights WERE needed, research would be done, and the appropriate transfers made. Since SCO in 10 years never came forward asking, I don't think anyone bothered researching it. However, 2 judges and a jury so far have all said they didn't transfer to SCO, and therefore not to tSCOG. 3) until tSCOG can show that there is code in there that a) they own the copyright to, and b) that they did not authorize the incorporation of the code into Linux (as opposed to the Caldera code that is / was in there, put in there by Caldera employees under direction of Caldera and Ransom Love to make the improvements), no worries. tSCOG in the IBM suit managed to identify something like 300 lines (we don't know what the lines are - that's under seal) that they MIGHT be able to claim copyright over. 4. The only other claim they're trying to weasel in (but haven't yet, because they were denied their third change of their complaint in the IBM case) is copyright on methods and concepts - which a) are not copyrightable (unless some court extends copyright), and b) probably not patentable at this point due to the wide-spread nature. ATT gave the code away partly to enable the teaching of methods concepts. jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
Forgot to add - should any code be identified, I anticipate the Linux community would recode around the issue within weeks, if not days. jeff ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: And we thought they were dead :-)
On 7/10/2010 9:13 AM, Jeffry Smith wrote: Judge Kimball rules as a matter of law the contract was clear, and tSCOG didn't get the copyrights. tSCOG appealed to the 10th circuit that it should be a jury who decide. 10th Circuit ruled ruled that, even if Judge Kimball was right (they actually stated in their decision Novell had compelling arguments), it was for a jury to decide (as tSCOG asked for), and sent it back to the district court, where Judge Kimball recused himself (for reasons I don't recall), so it ended up with Judge Stewart for jury trial. The jury (which tSCOG asked for) ruled tSCOG didn't get the copyrights (probably not helped by Darl testifying they didn't need the copyrights to conduct business under the APA, only for their new extortion scheme). tSCOG appealed to Judge Stewart on the grounds, basically, that the jury they had asked for had to be wrong (to quote a movie line I object on the grounds its damaging to our case). Judge Stewart denied their appeal. Now they're appealing back to 10th Circuit that both the jury (that they asked for) and Judge Stewart must be wrong, because no one could possibly rule against them. My suspicion is the 10th will deny them this time, but IANAL, so who knows? I would suspect that this is only a formality, and they plan to appeal to SCOTUS. I suspect they'll continue to appeal as long as they can. Of course, there's no requirement SCOTUS hear the appeal :) Thank you, Mr. Smith for your clear summation. I've long since last track of the in outs of all this. Other than the FUD (or otherwise) impact on Linux, I would not be interested in this matter, as I neither enjoy soap operas nor reality TV. The fact that this travesty has ground on so long both amazes and appalls me (IANAL, so perhaps this is common normal, though it boggles my mind). When the dust settles, and truth justice triumph (in other words, Linux, through its avatars, Novell IBM), hopefully there are enough resources to reimburse those who suffered through this process. If not, more revenue, and emotional catharsis, could be raised to compensate, through A Modest Proposal of mine: Confine Darl, the various attorneys, Yarrow, and the other SCO miscreants to a desert island, which is well-equipped with hidden cameras, though with as few resources as SCO truly had, and see what develops. Revenue could be generated by selling advertising and gambling on individual participants dominance length of survival. It would have much of the appeal of those game shows, soap operas and reality TV, which appear to captivate much of society. While it would be appropriate to deliver the Survivors-to-be to the island via a train wreck, however, a plane wreck would work (as it is the 21st century and our metaphors do need an update - plus I haven't figured out how to have a train wreck on a desert island). We could thrill to their emerging micro-society (ala Lord of the Flies), watch their gambols through the wilderness as they realize they truly are Lost and chill to their rising awareness that they themselves are the only protein source on the island. As I couldn't come up with a T-Rex to put on the island to eat any of the lawyers (for comic relief), this is then an alternative: Darl Yarrow, after capturing the attorneys (Dewey, Cheatam and Howe) in a long, long chase, broil them over a fire in an attempt to extract their only remaining value. Think I could get any takers to my Modest Proposal? -- Dan Jenkins, Rastech Inc., Bedford, NH, USA, 1-603-206-9951 *** Technical Support Excellence for four decades. ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Open Source in Russia ... lock-in
Microsoft opens source code to Russian secret service By Tom Espiner, ZDNet UK, 8 July, 2010 16:56 NEWS Microsoft has signed a deal to open its Windows 7 source code up to the Russian intelligence services. Russian publication Vedomosti reported on Wednesday that Microsoft had also given the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) access to Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2, Microsoft Office 2010 and Microsoft SQL Server source code, with hopes of improving Microsoft sales to the Russian state. [...] http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security/2010/07/08/microsoft-opens-source-code-to-russian-secret-service-40089481/ Remarks: [Sorry for the length; this turned into almost a blog post. -Bill] 1. The point isn't so much that a commercial entity did this. It's that proprietary software is *typically* handled this way; that users of proprietary software agree [by EULA] to expect no voice in such a decision. 2. They stand to benefit massively from having you locked-in; they want to trade your freedom for their profit. --Simon Phipps Open Core Is Bad For You http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=3047blogid=41 3. I happen at the moment to be researching remote-access technologies, things like logmein.com, for a client. Again and again we are asked to trust third parties, to sign EULAs, to give up [not just a few] rights, to get a shiny app. Again and again I find myself cornered by the actual terms of agreements: check back at our Web site for our unilateral changes to our privacy policies, etc; I always end up wondering how anyone who thinks about the problem doesn't restrict his or her choices in software to licenses which don't require abandoning all rights. Even if, as in the case of remote access, one has to learn a few things (as is certainly the case with the warty SSH!). [The fact seems to be that not CIO has ever been fired for giving away their company's rights, however. I guess if I were a CIO I'd have to do the same thing; a good reason to remain a technician.] 4. Sometimes I wonder if things would be any better if there was a big meter over the door, Locked-In, 0 to 100. [Imagining a world in which a client not only noticed lock-in, but attached some significant value to not being locked in.] ...a 'good enough' reaction among users. Particularly for users who have generally used only proprietary software, the experience of using a package that mostly respects software freedom can be incredibly liberating. When 98% of your software is FaiF-licensed, you sometimes don't notice the 2% that isn't. Over time, the 2% goes up to 3%, then 4%. This proprietary drift will often lead back to a system not that much different from (for example) Apple's operating system, which has a permissively-licensed software freedom core, but most of the system is very much proprietary. --Bradley M. Kuhn Beware of Proprietary Drift http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/05/08/proprietary-drift.html 5. 'But we HAVE to locked in'. 'Everything is wrapped up shiny and ready to use'. 'They take charge cards.' 'SSH is too warty.' 'Everyone else does it.' Well, no. 400,000 employees at IBM: Some of us started using it because it was new and fast and cool. I tried it for those reasons, but I still use it for the following ones: * Firefox is stunningly standards compliant, and interoperability via open standards is key to IBM's strategy. * Firefox is open source and its development schedule is managed by a development community not beholden to one commercial entity. * Firefox is secure and an international community of experts continues to develop and maintain it. * Firefox is extensible and can be customized for particular applications and organizations, like IBM. * Firefox is innovative and has forced the hand of browsers that came before and after it to add and improve speed and function. [...] Any employee who is not now using Firefox will be strongly encouraged to use it as their default browser. All new computers will be provisioned with it. --Bob Sutor Saying it out loud: IBM is moving to Firefox as its default browser http://www.sutor.com/c/2010/07/ibm-moving-to-firefox-as-default-browser/ ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Open Source in Russia ... lock-in
Hi Bill, Thanks for sharing that article. I wrote a rather lengthy comment to it, but will duplicate the comment here: The devil will be in the details of the agreement, but for the most point this seems like an agreement to make some Russian bureaucrat feel good. (1) If the Russians are trying to see if the binary code they are given has any trapdoors or other malware in it, then it is very hard to see that the binary code that they receive from Microsoft was generated by the sources that they are looking at. (2) If the Russians do wish to make sure their code has no issues, then they would probably not only need the sources for the code in question, but the entire build environment that Microsoft uses so they can build their own binaries. There was a very famous UNIX exploit where the code that allowed the code for the exploit was in the C compiler, not in the operating system. When the C compiler compiled a particular module, it inserted the exploit into that module. You could have looked at the sources for that module your entire life and not have seen the exploit. (3) If the Russians are looking to create better security and encryption algorithms as the article states, then they should know that probably those security and encryption algorithms would be best developed outside of mixing them with any of Microsoft's code (i.e. develop it more as a layered product or dynamically loaded module). Otherwise the Russians would be at the whim of either Microsoft or the U.S. State Department as to whether Microsoft would ever distribute the code the Russians developed. Of course the Russians could implement and distribute their code mixed with the Microsoft sources themselves, but then then the Russians would need the entire tool chain (see #2) (4) The government may have access to the source code, but I doubt if it goes beyond that. What happens if the government wants to have a university help them with developing these algorithms? What hoops have to be jumped through to get the universities access to the sources? Compare this agreement and these thoughts to doing the same type of work using a distribution like Gentoo Linux. Is it any wonder why the NSA chose Linux for their SELinux project? I think what happened is that someone in the Russian government said We can not use Microsoft because we can not see if the USA had put any spy-ware in it and Microsoft said No problem, we will show you the source code. So now the Russian bureaucrat feels better. maddog ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Re: Open Source in Russia ... lock-in
The devil will be in the details of the agreement, but for the most point this seems like an agreement to make some Russian bureaucrat feel good. Maybe it's retaliation for that spy-ring currently in the news... ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
