[plug] Outline of advice to aussie business.

[Shayne O'Neill]

Cheers Onno, I was originally gunna paste it into the mail, but it seems
Open Office did want to play cut&paste with gnome term.

Eh. I'll have a bunch of those headings filled in by this arvo.

Cheers,
Shayne.

------------------------------------
"Must not Sleep! Must warn others!"
-Aesop.
Shayne O'Neill. Indymedia. Fun.
http://www.perthimc.asn.au

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Onno Benschop wrote:

> For those not inclined to download .doc files where .txt suffices:
>
> -------------------------START--------------------------
> SCO's Linux Licensing scheme.
> Reasons why Australian Business should not cooperate with SCO's Linux
> Licensing program.
>
>
> INTRODUCTION
> Quick synopsis of situation at hand.
>
> Unix history till Linux. Economics and the failure of SCO.
>
>
> The IBM Lawsuit.
> When it was launched. The discovery process . Initial reactions to it.
> IBM's counter suit.
>
>
> Discredited claims of ownership.
> ABI files.
>
> The files displayed at the SCO conference.
>
> JFS & NUMA.
>
> SGI.
>
> Caldera programmers.
>
> No known infringement has been identified by anyone , anywhere, ever.
>
> SCO still distributes Linux code , and has therefore agreed to GPL
> conditions.
>
>
> SCO does not own Unix licences. Novel does.
> The transfer of business.
>
> SCO does not own copyrights to UNIX.
>
> Novel exercises its rights and absolves SGI and IBM of infringement.
>
> Novel threatens to audit SCO's compliance with its request to cease and
> desist in these actions.
>
>
> SCO does not have permission to disobey the GPL.
> The GPL is not a copyright statement, it is a licence. Although it is
> colloquially refered to as a ´copy left¡, the GPL is a licence that
> relies of Copyright to gain force of law.
>
> If the Licensee does not agree to the conditions, the Licensee must
> STOP.
>
> The principle IP owners of the Linux Kernel are Linus Torvalds, Red Hat
> , IBM, and many others. None of these parties have consented to the
> violation of the GPL.
>
> The SCO Licence directly breaches the GPL rights of the IP holders.
>
> Participating in this breach opens business to be liable for charges of
> software piracy.
>
> Furthermore, if the ACCC rules this to be Unfair, the penalties range in
> the tens of millions of dollars.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> SCO are forbidden from these actions in Germany.
> The Linuxtag Lawsuit.
>
> The complaints to the ACCC.
>
>
> Participating in the SCO Source Scheme exposes business to charges of
> Software Piracy.
> Maybe?
>
>
> Recommendations to Australian Businesses.
> The invoices are illegal and should be treated as such.
>
> Linux uses should feel confident that there software investments are
> safe.
>
> Gartner has recommended Migrating SCO boxes away due to the likelyhood
> of an SCO corporate collapse.
>
> If the company feels compelled to move away from Linux, the company
> should consider the BSD operating system.
>
>
> References
> Apendixes
> -----------------END------------------------
>
>
> Apart from the obvious spelling errors, let me attempt to constructively
> provide feedback on this document.
>
> You are not a lawyer AFAIK, so commenting on the legal state of claims
> and counter claims is not IMHO a good idea.
>
> Much of what you outline already exists on-line. It would be prudent to
> write a single sentence/paragraph regarding a statement and then refer
> to the document by URL (perhaps attached if this is submitted off-line).
>
> A much stronger argument can be made if you describe how it affects
> you/us, rather than "generally".
>
> The document you outline when completed could consist of a novel. I
> suggest that a single page submission with attachments is more
> realistic.
>
> I understand the tone of what you are attempting to outline, but it jars
> a little with me. Many Linux users have read groklaw and slashdot et-al,
> and have a background that goes back to last year. I understand your
> desire to share some of that background, but I think that it would be
> more beneficial to refer to that background, rather than include it.
>
> I would suggest that a more constructive approach be that this SCO fud
> is costing our industry/business/etc money in wasted resources and that
> SCO is now attempting to extract funds out of Australian industry, based
> on the premise that they have a strong case. While we have no way of
> knowing if their case is strong or not, and while we cannot make any
> assertions about their case, they are premature in extracting funds.
>
> We can go on to say that we believe that their case is groundless, based
> on our investigations into the matter over the last ten months or so,
> and that every claim made by SCO thus-far has been disputed.
>
> It is not our place to agree or disagree with SCO's assertions, nor are
> we asking the ACCC to do that, we're stating that SCO's methods are not
> compatible with Australian business, and we ask that the ACCC
> communicate this to SCO in no uncertain terms.
>
> My understanding - incomplete at best - of the German case is that SCO
> is claiming something that has not been proven and is attempting to act
> as if it were true. The legal system there told SCO to put up or shut
> up. The latter being their response. *That* is what we want here...
>
> Anyone?
>
>
> Onno Benschop
>
> Connected via Optus B3 at S34°15'14" - E140°28'19" (Barmera, SA)
> --
> ()/)/)()        ..ASCII for Onno..
> |>>?            ..EBCDIC for Onno..
> --- -. -. ---   ..Morse for Onno..
>
> Proudly supported by Skipper Trucks, Highway1, Concept AV, Sony Central, Dalcon
> ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 8888 - onno at itmaze dot com dot au
>
> _______________________________________________
> plug mailing list
> plug at plug.linux.org.au
> http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug
>