ft Vol. XXV, Issue 14 "Can't Publish, Clowns Will Eat Me" Auust 13,2003 1.; i *: Reviews of Stuff all over Ask Dr. Sam Lots of naked -• :: "...:! ;i (.. " i""" rp.1 i: ;·: ;·- ·~I;-i ----------------- In an age when corporations act against SCO's stance on Linux is a multifaceted ects would have a negligible effect on Linux as a the public, when CE'sdefraud and lie to their web of lies, half-truths and omissions, amounting whole; this claim is ridiculous on its face. investors, when companies collude to decimate to a fallacious argument at best. They allege that SCO stated that Linux could not have competition and increase profits, when "creative Linux is an "unauthorized derivative", that "the become feasible for enterprise-level applications accounting" has replaced honesty and integrity, entire direction of Linux development changed without "access to Unix code and development the bar of corporate ethics is at an all-time low. with IBM's entry into the open source community methods" and that Linus Torvalds cannot deter- The recent lawsuit brought by The SCO Group and its concerted efforts to control the community mine whether any SCO code exists in Linux. In a agapnst technology-giant IBM .(see for its own economic benefit", that Linux could convers4ion with MozillaQuest Magazine, SCO's http/Www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/amendedcoiphin- not have reached its current phase of development Director. of Marketing Communications Blake tjunel6.html) has lowered this bar to new, subter- without access to SCO's code that LinusTorvalds Stowell stated that "Linus Torvalds has stated over ranean levels. Alleging ownership of tens, if not cannot determine whether any SCO code exists in and over that Linux was developed as a derivative hundreds, of pieces of software, SCO (formerly Unix, and that IBM disclosed proprietary technol- of UNIX... Go to www.google.com and type in the known as SCO/Caldera) attempted to wrest the ogy. words Linus derivative UNIX. You'll see that 5,010 constitutional rights of freedom of assembly and Linux, independently developed from hits appear. Choose your favorite URL and read all speech from the American public by suing IBM for scratch by Linus Torvalds (et al.) in 1991, has about it (http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource- breach of contract due, in large part, to IBM's evolved through the contributions of hundreds of 02_StoryOl.html)." The only hit that makes the efforts to foster creativity, international communi- programmers worldwide and is distributed under claim that Linux is a derivative of Unix is a ty, and innovation by supporting and helping to the GNU General Public License (GPL) which TechTV article written by Roger Chang; not even develop so-called "open source" software. requires, among other provisions, that every piece one of the 5,150 websites Google returned quoted SCO claims toown the copyright on Unix, of software released under the GPL be accompa- Torvalds as saying that Linux was developed as a an operating system that competes with nied by its full source code; the full GPL itself can derivative of UNIX, Stowell's claims to the con- Microsoft's Windows, Apple's OS X, Linux and a be viewed at trary. host of other software designed to act as bridges http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.htmi. Several cor- So what would prompt The SCO Group to between computer hardware and the user's soft- porations released commercial distributions of bring such a lawsuit? SCO's 10-K tax form of 2002 ware applications. They believe that ownership of Linux under the GPL including, for a time, states "We have not been profitable. If our revenue this copyright allows them to bully the technology SCO/Caldera! In other words, they released for continues to decline or we are unable to efficiently industry into paying them billions of dollars. all to see the very thing that they are now claiming further reduce operating expenses, we may not They further claim that their code is proprietary is a confidential, proprietary technology. To quote achieve profitability or generate positive cash (i.e. it cannot be publicly distributed without from the OSI Position Paper, if The SCO Group flow." SCO is, in other words, operating in the red licenses or confidentiality agreements) and that "did not know at the time of the complaint that and needs a cash infusion. If they were to win IBM violated the proprietary nature of SCO's Caldera itself had played a lead role in the very their lawsuit, IBM would provide the necessary property. SCO also alleges that it owns all works development they accuse IBM of having unfairly capital to keep SCO afloat, to the tune of up to $1 derived from Unix, regardless of existing licensing and unlawfully pursued, they are incompetent. If billion. And why would SCO go after Linux? The agreements and contracts. As Eric S. Raymond's they did know, their complaint appears to verge very same 10-K states "solution providers upon (industry expert and Open Source Initiative presi- closely upon perjury." whom we depend for the distribution of our prod- dent) well-documented position paper To make matters worse for SCO, this very ucts could instead create their own Linux solu- (http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html) shows, same code was available to the public via SCO's tions to provide to their customers"; by claiming SCO has omitted truths, sworn affidavits and own website long after SCO initiated this lawsuit! that Linux is a derivative of SCO's intellectual complaints that are riddled with errors and falla- This is just as inane as if I were to put an ad on a property, winning the lawsuit would destroy cies and, in several instances, has outright lied to billboard and then sue everyone who read it. SCO Linux as a viable alternative to SCO's Unix sys- the American public. rang the bell, so to speak, by publishing this code, tems. In other words, SCO needs money and to In reality, SCO owns a body of code orig- dashing all claims of privacy and the proprietary eliminate competition so it is going after the deep- inally written by AT&T's Bell Laboratories in 1969, nature of their technologies; they now expects the est pockets (IBM) and the strongest potential rival under the name "Unix". They do not, contrary to courts to overlook SCO's role as Quasimodo. (Linux). their legal verbiage, own the name "Unix" as that As for SCO's claims about IBM's entry In short, The SCO Group has decided to term is a copyright held by The Open Group since into the Linux market changing the direction of lie, cheat, falsify quotes, revise history and over- 1994. The Open Group, a technical standards that market entirely, the facts speak for them- look its own involvement just so that it can organization, uses the term "Unix" to describe an selves: at the time IBM began developing software increase its profits and eliminate the competition. operating system that has been shown to meet the for Linux, the Open Source Development Lab was Through SCO's ethical lapses, blatant disregard published Unix standard. SCO claims to be a already in existence and was funded by twenty- for the truth, creative legal fiction, revisionist his- major player in the enterprise-level Unix operat- one technology giants including Intel, HP, Dell, tory and hatred of fair play, healthy competition ing systems niche; the reality, according to SCO's IBM - and SCO/Caldera! SCO, in making this and the future of corporate America, SCO's CEO own old tax forms, is that the most optimistic esti- claim, is claiming Intel, HP, and Dell (among oth- Darl C. McBride has just joined the lofty ranks of mate of SCO's market share in this area was a ers) were not large enough players in the comput- Martha Stewart, Enron's Kenneth Lay, Tyco's L. measly 3.1%. er industry that their participation in Linux proj- Dennis Kozlowski and Halliburton's Dick Cheney. You Wanna Know Where You in Stick Your Opinions? (hint: It Rhymes With "Stained-Glasshole") sbpress ic.sunysb.edu Pane_ -··-_ 2 ·· .. -- ~ nternet Piracy e debate on the siar in of inorma ti.rts steali g By Daniel Hofer Revolutions in society are based around Because of this convenient copyright cir- attempt to take down any new technology that improving and creating technologies in two areas: cumvent, the music industry has avidly spoken tries to circumvent copyright laws. They have the movement of goods and physical items (the out against music file sharing. A major actor, the gone to great lengths to attempt to accomplish wheel, the steam engine), and the movement of RIAA (Recording Industry Association of this, including contacting Internet providers and ideas and information (the telephone, the televi- America) is a conglomerate of the major music universities asking for assistance, sending cease sion). Having the greatest social impact in recent publishers. These worldwide publishers consist of and desist letters, and privately messaging the years is the Internet, transforming the way society Vivendi Universal, Sony, Warner Music, EMI individual user. These actors' would like to see communicates. music, and Bertelsmann. The RIAA contests that copyright infringement come to a total standstill. The Internet has become a multi-media people who download music online are thieves. Only in their ideal world can this happen. tool that converges mediums that were once Richard Parsons, co-chief operating officer of AOL "Underground" trading of music will always thought to only be separate. Print, video and Time Warner spoke out against Napster (a web- exist, as long as there is a cheap effective method audio can be combined in a way that can greatly based group promoting unrestricted music shar- of doing so.