|
SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online |
|
Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 12:30 PM EDT
|
The FSF has placed the subpoena they received from SCO late last year online on this page and you can download it as a PDF from there. It's an unbelievably broad subpoena, asking in effect for every document relating to the GPL since 1999, among other things. Obviously, the FSF will protest some of the requests, asserting no doubt that the subpoena is overly broad and that some of the requests are for privileged communications, just as IBM successfully argued that SCO's request for all versions of AIX since the beginning of the world was overly broad. I note also that some requests may no longer be relevant, since SCO has dropped some of its original claims. And number 7 asks for all communications between The Free Trade Software Foundation and various individuals, and there is, so far as I can find, no such entity. And it's Open Source Development Labs, not Open Software Development Labs. Larry, Curly and Moe send a subpoena.
SCO has asked them to produce the following: 1. All documents concerning any communication between the Free Software Foundation and IBM relating to UNIX, AIX, DYNIX, LINUX, or any other UNIX based operating system.
2. All documents concerning any communication between The Free Software Foundation and IBM relating to The SCO Group.
3. All documents and communications concerning alleged, potential or actual violations of the GPL asserted or known by The Free Software Foundation against any entity or person since January 1, 1999.
4. All guidelines, policies, procedures, documents, memoranda, notes and/or manuals relating to the enforcement and enforceability of the GPL.
5. All documents sufficient to identify all assignments of software to The Free Software Foundation, the assignor of all the software assignments to The Free Software Foundation, and the date and the terms of all such assignments of software to The Free Software Foundation.
6. All guidelines, policies, procedures, and/or manuals concerning the process of reviewing or vetting source code for copyright, patent and/or trade secret violations in open source/free software development processes.
7. All documents and communications between and amongst The Free Trade Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and/or Linus Torvalds concerning:
a. enforcement of the GPL
b. procedures or methods for avoiding infringement or infringement claims in open source software development.
8. All contracts or agreements with:
a. IBM
b. Open Software Development Labs
c. Red Hat
d. SuSE
e. Any other Linux distributor or company
f. Linus Torvalds
g. Richard Stallman
h. Eben Moglen
i. Alan Cox
j. Andrew Morton
Now do you see why some companies might prefer insurance or indemnification to the annoyance of a lawsuit, even one you are quite sure you will win? Imagine the costs to a small nonprofit organization of trying to comply with such a list. It's like a BSA audit on steroids.
The FSF's Bradley Kuhn says this on the web site: "Late last year, we were subpoenaed by SCO as part of the ongoing dispute between SCO and IBM. Today, we made that subpoena available on our website. This is a broad subpoena that effectively asks for every single document about the GPL and enforcement of the GPL since 1999. They also demand every document and email that we have exchanged with Linus Torvalds, IBM, and other players in the community. In many cases, they are asking for information that is confidential communication between us and our lawyers, or between us and our contributors.
"As the SCO lawsuit drags on, we will have to make some tough decisions about how to answer this subpoena. We are certain that we will not produce all the material requested; we will not betray our legally protected confidences, particularly when they relate to our work upholding the integrity of the GPL. However, regardless of whether we dispute the whole subpoena in court, or provide those documents which we are able to determine are reasonable and relevant to produce, there is much work for FSF. If we fight the subpoena, it means substantial legal fees associated with litigation. If we produce materials, it means substantial effort to gather the relevant documents. Even though we'll be reimbursed for the direct costs, the indirect costs in staff time will be ours to bear."
SCO is trying to prove its humorous thesis that the FSF is the only one allowed to enforce the GPL, I gather, and then to prove that it has done so inconsistently. I suspect someone also wants to know a lot of details about the FSF for purposes outside the scope of this case. Kuhn calls SCO "a blip -- a precursor to the challenges the Free Software will face" and so they have just begun a project "to document and codify our process, so that it can be disseminated in the form of a policy manual and accompanying software, to all other Free Software projects who wish to solidify their legal assembly process."
That makes sense. They have to do all the research anyway, to respond to the subpoena, so why not have something very good come out of it? Typical FOSS creativity on display.
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
Please collect all necessary corrections in this thread, so I can find them
quickly. Thank you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
I hope they do as CA did and demand that SCOG staff & anyone outside this
never see anything, that any analysis get done by outside counsel.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 01:54 PM EDT |
Just like the Stallman & Perens quotes they used earlier?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 01:55 PM EDT |
As one of the thousands with copyright assignment forms in the FSF records.
Let me say thank you SCO, for making this personal!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Great.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:11 PM EDT
- How could it even be relevant? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:22 PM EDT
- How could it even be relevant? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:49 PM EDT
- How could it even be relevant? - Authored by: dcs on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:51 PM EDT
- How could it even be relevant? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- How could it even be relevant? - Authored by: ihawk on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:58 PM EDT
- I would like - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:57 PM EDT
- How could it even be relevant? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:58 PM EDT
- Another SCO silly legal theory - Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:54 PM EDT
- 'Relevance' is not the appropriate standard in discovery - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- How could it even be relevant? - Authored by: globularity on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 08:30 PM EDT
- How could it even be relevant? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 09:51 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 01:58 PM EDT |
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: peragrin on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:00 PM EDT |
"Free Trade Software Foundation"??
Damn you could pull a Diamlyer Chrysler and just go Who???
I would have the Judge clarify exactly the points that are needed. SCO is
basically asking for every piece of information the FSF ever produced.
On the Other hand the FSF should Document all communications about it's
activities online. Protected documents and letters sould be noted as such for
reference later by those that deem it legeally nessacary. Create an open place
where all that can be is available, while the few protected documents get noted
of their exsistance while hiding from prying eyes.
---
I thought once I was found but it was only a dream.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
I walk into a Business Depot & buy some copies of landlord tenant
contracts.
Can a tenant later come and claim that it's up to Business Depot or the the
contract's author to enforce it?
This entire affair is indeed an education about the US legal system, punctuating
the fact that if you have the money to pay a few lawyers you can make all the
outrageous, laughably ludicrous claims that you can pull out your rear.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
I think this clearly demonstrates how IP law is more like a hammer than a law.
They must be painfully aware that they STILL haven't even disclosed What Who is
doing that infringes or breaches right or a contract. Now we're going to
further impose more hardships on even more companies without knowledge of WHAT
WHO did WRONG.
I've heard our system is the best there is, but when I see the FBI being pulled
into IP cases more and more I have to ask 'who's got the borders folks'? Seems
like a terrible waste of resources to jump to phase 2 when phase one is simply
disclosing what you think the DEFENDANT did to you!
eleete
I hate IP laws![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:02 PM EDT |
Thats amazing.
I'm not sure exactly how much of that is actually relevant to the SCO case. How
would proving that enforcement of the GPL was inconsistant help them anyway?
I am sure there are a ton of emails between the big names in linux development
that would be better off out of the publics eyes.. not because they are illegal
or immoral as SCO would probably have you believe, but because they were
private. arguements about direction, philosophy and vision can get pretty heated
at times. and having private emails like those put out in public would be just
wrong.
I really don't understand what they are trying to achieve with this anyway.. the
GPL is "on paper" once again they are trying to say that oral
arguements take precidence over the paperwork. Just as they are doing with the
Novell case and with the Canopy/Novell case that they just lost.
sad and yet somehow funny as well.
rgds
Franki
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:07 PM EDT |
Can you come up with any ridiculuous legal theory, and then subpoena documents
which can only be argued as relevant because of your ridiculous legal theory?
If I contend that former President Bill Clinton, is the only one who can
currently enforce federal securities laws, can I subpoena him if the SEC comes
knocking on my door for insider trading?
- It is not up to the FSF to enforce IBM's license or IBM's copyrights.
- The conduct of the FSF has no relevance to IBM's enforcement of IBM's license
or IBM's copyrights.
The court will undoubtedly rule this (if this particular matter ever gets before
it) as a matter of law. FSF conduct on enforcing or not enforcing the GPL (for
example), is simply irrelevant, to how IBM enforces the GPL on IBM software.
So can't we have that ruling now, and avoid the FSF wasting time and money
producing documents which are not legally relevant anyway?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rand on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
I can see SCOGroup asking for the info in 1,2, and 6a, but that could be
obtained from IBM. The rest of the requests seem absolutely silly unless FSF
were made a direct party to the IBM lawsuit, since IBM never mentioned them. Or
maybe I'm missing a legal point. Can SCOG drag bystanders into the fray on
their own say-so?
---
carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" (IANAL and so forth and so on)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: prayforwind on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
This is just getting more and more insane... Can someone tell me why the court
cannot order SCO to "make reasonable attempt to mitigate damages"
(alleged to have been caused by IBM) before proceeding any further with invasive
nuisance subpoena's of this sort? Here in Canada, I believe it would be
nescessary for a plaintiff to do this before or concurrently with filing a
lawsuit. (Mitigating damages would of course mean taking up the communities
offer to replace any offending code SCO can identify). This circus has just gone
on too long.
---
jabber me: prayforwind@jabber.org[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
I know SCO and its overlords are hoping to find something increminating about
FOSS. I am beginning to think they are paranoid enough to see it as some grand
conpiracy to take their precious proprietary market share.
I mean afterall, all this software couldn't have been developed by good nice
people, there must be evil secrets somewhere, some open admission to
copyright/patent infringement and a cover up.
I think this may just be imposing their own reflection on FOSS. They just can't
imagine anyone doing this the hard and honest way. SCO bought most of their
software/IP, and their overlords bought most and stole a good bit too (some of
which they later had to pay for).
Truthfully though, I know FOSS has had many discussions on specific patents and
many attempts to work around them - freetype, ungif, etc. So FSF may have
discussions on infringement of patents, but I seriously doubt there have ever
been discussions on covering up either patent or copyright violations as the
solution is usually to gut the software(which is the legally correct recourse)
if it is so knowingly tainted.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:17 PM EDT |
Would this subpoena be more for advertising than for any legitimate legal
purpose?
An invitation for anyone who wants to see the FSF overly burdened to invest in
SCOG?
"open signalling" is where companies collude through public
utterances.
Thus no "secret back room dealings" occur.
This happened when, for instance one time the CEO of an airline put out a public
letter saying he was not going to lower his rates but was prepared to lower them
drastically if anyone else tried to lower them.
Since all the communication (in this case an invitation for all anti-GPL parties
to invest in SCOG) is public there is no illegal, secretive collusion (ie
racketeering or trust/antitrust issues).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
Is SCO just begging to be classified as a "vexatious litigant"? Does
Utah have any vexatious litigant laws?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eloj on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
I assume getting subpoenad gives you the right to subpoena back? Or is this a
one-sided ass-reaming?
In that case the FSF should fire back with "all documents, audio
recordings, video recordings, notes between SCO and any other party where the
FSF, the GPL {list of principal parties that SCO asked for info about} appears
and/or are mentioned, and in addition any press-clippings of the same."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
I thought the SCO case was about
1. The GPL (or claimed non-enforceability by IBM)
2. Trade secret and/or copyright claims against IBM
3. Linux, AIX, and Dynix
Point #1 has already been addressed in several other points
However I would like to focus on points 2 and 3
What possible relevance is there trade secret and/or patent and/or copyright
issues for FSF. Especially patents.
What possible relevance is there for other GNU software (the case is supposedly
about Linux, not the hundreds of other GNU programs, and Linux is not even a
FSF/GNU program)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:18 PM EDT |
I notice that the subpoena says that Boies and co. will reimburse FSF for all
reasonable copying expenses.
Given that, I recommend that they pull a SCO, and just send them print copies of
EVERYTHING, but no electronis copies.
Then bill them for it....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
Once each and every contributor is linked to each and every piece of code then
expect RIAA style lawsuits to follow.
It is likely that suing individual contributors will do more for MS to derail
open source than suing the end users.
The worst is yet to come..... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:19 PM EDT |
Since the FSF is not a party to the lawsuit and since there is very little
apparent relavance to the claims made by SCOG in their lawsuit, why doesn't FSF
simply move to have the subpeona invalidated?
Much of what is asked for is apparently irrelevant and/or availible from other
more appropriate sources. For example wouldn't it be more appropriate to ask IBM
to produce all of it's correcspndence with FSF, since IBM is a party to the suit
and has equal access to the material.
It's hard to see what most of the other information has to do with the
allegation in the suit against IBM. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Relevance? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:18 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:31 PM EDT |
$30.00? Provide them with $30.00 worth of copies. To make it all fit you will
have to put it on micorofiche. Or better yet, stick everything you can find on
$30.00 worth of CDs and tell them that its all there and they can find all they
need on the disks. Better yet compress everthing and put it on the disks.
*(&(%(%
Excuse my foreign language![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:32 PM EDT |
Trusted computing:
JA: What work do you intend to get involved in that's related to trusted
computing?
Andrea Arcangeli: See the TCG benefits at the
https://www.trustedcomputinggroup.org/ website, that's what the hardware feature
can provide, that should be a generic hardware feature and there should be no
technical reason why we couldn't support it in linux too.
Actually in my spare time I had an idea of one revolutionary and ambitious
project I can build on top of the trusted computing capable hardware (that
project has nothing to do with linux by the way, but for it to run on linux too,
linux would need to provide some basic trusted computing support), that's
something I wanted to build for a long time but it has never been feasible until
they added the trusted computing to the hardware and they filled the gap to make
my idea possible, so I'm quite happy about these new hardware features (despite
clearly they can be misused for some annoying things too).
JA: Are you willing to share more about what this idea is and how it would
work?
Andrea Arcangeli: Not yet sorry, it's excessively complex to be discussed within
an interview, so you will have to trust me that you can do really useful things
on top of that new hardware technology.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
So when is SCO going to sue other Canopy companies and their customers? I'd
certainly be entertained if SCO sued LLNL for their purchase from Linux Networx,
but I think SCO's nastygram to LLNL should be enough to prosecute Canopy and in
particular Darcy Mott.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
I agree it's probably a bad thought, and it wouldn't be a good idea to do this,
but perhaps there is something that we can collectively do like sign a petition
or write a letter to congress.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: geoff lane on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
Bryan Sparks (with Ray Noorda) created Caldera in Oct 1994.
In Jan 1997 Caldera
was going to release some products based on the Linux 2.x kernel.
One of the
objectives was to create a Linux that could be put forward for POSIX
certification and obtain Unix branding. Bryan was interviewed by Linux
Journal...
...Caldera's intent was to make any necessary
changes for POSIX certification and Unix branding available to the Linux
community as a whole. He sees Caldera's products as part of the total product
mix for the Linux community and wants to make sure Caldera's work continues to
be part of the mainstream.....
[Phil Hughes] asked Bryan if Caldera intended
to continue with Unix branding of their product. (To be able to use the Unix
name, your product must be certified by X/Open.) The answer is yes, and he
expects this to happen in 1997. Bryan wants to make sure Caldera does this
right, getting any required patches back into the mainstream Linux kernel so
everyone will benefit from their work.
So, it was
Calderas intent to develop Linux to the point where it could obtain Unix
branding and contribute those patches back into the kernel. Now, how
careful was Caldera to provide a "clean room" development process when bringing
Linux to POSIX compliance?
I suspect they did a pretty good job as nobody
can point to suspect code even with the efforts of many to find something,
anything, suspect. But when the company became SCOv2 and Darl needed a cash
machine the appearance of the possibility of code being appropriated was
sufficient to start the FUD process.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mobrien_12 on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
1. All documents concerning any communication between the Free
Software Foundation and IBM relating to UNIX, AIX, DYNIX, LINUX, or any other
UNIX based operating system.
Nice loaded question. LINUX is not
a UNIX-based operating system. The judicious placment of LINUX at the end of
the list has lots of implied meanings and the "or" gives them plausible
deniability.
2. All documents concerning any communication between
The Free Software Foundation and IBM relating to The SCO
Group.
Yeah, like all people have time to do is talk about your
sorry company. SCO is going to a lot of trouble to equate FSF with GPL and the
Linux kernel, and it just doesn't match. Anything not related to the Linux
kernel is NYOB.
3. All documents and communications concerning
alleged, potential or actual violations of the GPL asserted or known by The Free
Software Foundation against any entity or person since January 1,
1999.
Probably going for the "GPL is unenforcable because the FSF
enforces it selectively" angle again. This of course completely misses the
point that the linux kernel is not a FSF project (FSF does not own the
copyright) and the FSF has no authority to enforce violations of the GPL as
related to the Linux kernel.
4. All guidelines, policies,
procedures, documents, memoranda, notes and/or manuals relating to the
enforcement and enforceability of the GPL.
Yup... see
#3.
5. All documents sufficient to identify all assignments of
software to The Free Software Foundation, the assignor of all the software
assignments to The Free Software Foundation, and the date and the terms of all
such assignments of software to The Free Software Foundation.
You
idiots, the FSF has nothing to do with the Linux kernel!
Any other assignments
are NYOB.
6. All guidelines, policies, procedures, and/or manuals
concerning the process of reviewing or vetting source code for copyright, patent
and/or trade secret violations in open source/free software development
processes.
This information, if it exists, would be freely
available on their website.
7. All documents and communications
between and amongst The Free Trade Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, Eben
Moglen and/or Linus Torvalds concerning (all sorts of irrelevant
stuff).
ARGH.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ujay on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:49 PM EDT |
Okay, let's show a little bit of rationality here. We all crowed deliciously
over IBM's requests for everything. When SCO asks for the moon, we deride them.
Let's be more impartial.
This is typical subpoena activity, ask for the moon, and the court finally
decides what is relevant.
I did like the attachment of the $30.00 check for 'copying fees'. Hmm, if FSF
makes a copy of some infringing code, is SCO liable for inducement?
Also, it does appear that SCO, or at least Darl, thinks discovery is a one way
street. Reference his comment from an earlier interview: 'We get to look inside
IBM and see what was going on'.
---
Programmer: A biological system designed to convert coffee and cheesies into
code[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: reuben on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
7. All documents and communications between and amongst The Free
Trade Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen and/or Linus Torvalds
concerning:
[...]
b. procedures or methods for avoiding
infringement or infringement claims in open source software
development.
Are they asking for a lecture on the difference
between free software and open source? What can the FSF say, except that they
can't speak for the open source people? Also, item 1 includes "LINUX" but not
GNU or even GNU/Linux in the list of "UNIX-based operating systems." Not good
form at all when addressing the FSF. Perhaps they will get an educational and
informative response.
It's like they haven't even glanced at the FSF
web page. So inept, on so many levels!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kevin on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:50 PM EDT |
Hmmm. Has anyone else noticed that
- the subpoena was dated 5 November
2003.
- the subpoena demands production of that immense library
of documents
to Boston & Waltham - Eyal Court Reporting at 9:00 a.m., 21 November
2003.
- it's now six months later.
- Even though SCO's discovery
was stayed for some time,
there is no longer any stay in effect.
- Eben Moglen
is far too skillful a lawyer to be trapped
into being held in contempt for
failure to comply with
a subpoena.
The obvious conclusion: FSF must have
moved to have the
subpoena quashed, or its scope constrained, or at the
very
least for an extension of time. And that motion hasn't
been made public.
There must be some interesting
lawyering going on behind the scenes.
(images of Moglen
with an evil grin, sharpening some pointy object prior
to
moving in...)
--- 73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not
McBride!) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: stashu on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
I've been lurking here for a few months now and I really get amazed by the
futility of SCO. In watching that, I've added them to my Yahoo stock
"portfolio" so I can keep an eye on their share price every day.
I was just curious if a small project to track the stock's pricing and volume
would be a worthy thing to work on. I'd be more than willing to keep track of
things after it's going, but I unfortunately don't have the know how or
resources to do lookups of every day's closing price and volume since the suit
started. If given the information to do the work all the way back, I will. I'm
not trying to be a first-time poster making more work for the rest of you who do
a lot of commenting and work around here. =)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jaywalk on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:06 PM EDT |
That's the one that requests all documents alleging GPL violations. I'm sure
that the FSF has stacks of letters alleging that SCO has violated the GPL by
first distributing Linux and then trying to charge for it. It would be amusing
to see a truckload or two of those delivered to SCO's lawyers for perusal.
But
why should it matter if the FSF is "inconsitent" in pursuing GPL infractions?
AFAIK, it's up to copyright holders to decide which, if any, copyright
infractions they want to follow up on. --- ===== Murphy's Law is recursive.
===== [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:14 PM EDT |
What if FSF simply cannot afford to realise the resources necessary to action
this request?
Could SCO take this line with an individual?
I am personally upset with this. It is just the same as SCO trying to supenea my
grandad. Im not saying that FSF is totally defenseless but it is simply 'not
fair' to be put under this pressure.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tangomike on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
Even if you think that GNU and the GPL are off base on FOSS, I think you should
look at this a threat that needs to be stopped. It goes beyond FSF, by a long
shot.
So, how to do this? Obviously, this represents big bucks in costs to FSF, so one
kind of help would be donations.
Groklaw has shown that the community can make a big difference. What other
creative (AND LEGAL) methods can we come up with to thwart this? Let's put our
thinking caps on.
---
To The SCO Group - please come back when you pass a Turing test.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Hyrion on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:27 PM EDT |
I get the impression that SCOG is trying to claim:
The GPL is a license
used on open source software
The Linux kernel is available by agreement
of the GPL
The FSF which guards/created/owns the GPL license
selectively enforces the license
Therefore any use of the GPL is
invalid
The seem to want to ignore the fact that selective
enforcement of a particular copyrighted material by an individual/company only
leads to the possibility that: that one protected copyrighted item may
possibly be then unenforcable.
Somehow it seems they want
to tie that selective enforcement into invalidating the GPL itself.
Note:
The above is what I remember from various discussions on Groklaw and what it
appears SCOG is trying to do from my perspective.
--- There are many
kinds of dreams. All can be reached if a person chooses. - RS [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NemesisNL on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 03:42 PM EDT |
It's clear that SCO keeps distributing OSS with their unix stuff. Since they
have publicly stated that they do not accept the GPL the FSF should now take SCO
to court for copyright violation and, as someone else sugested ont his forum,
get SCO to turn over every single document ever produced on any subject to the
FSF. Surely the FSF is representing some of the copyrightholders whose software
is being distributed by SCO.
These SCO hooligans will stop at nothing and are clearly no longer on a money
making strategy. Their only goal is to do as much damage as they can while they
go down in flames. This is no longer a time to stand by and watch. If the FSF
has no meony I'm sure a lot of people would be willing to donate, however smal
an amount, to make sure SCO is not allowed to damage a valuable organisation
like the FSF. I am not a rich man, money wise, but I'd be willing to pitch in
with what ever I can afford. So come FSF, take the gloves of and fight. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:00 PM EDT |
Gonna sue ya, for that code you wrote
Big lawyers, I got a truck load
You might think, that I got nothing
But I don't worry, 'cause I'm something
I'm a SCOooo man
I'm a SCOooo man
Got what I got, the easy way
I stretch the truth, each and every day
So honey, you know I don't fret
'cause we ain't shown, nothing yet
I'm a SCOooo man
I'm a SCOooo man
Well grab the rope, and I'll reel you in
Give you hope, but leave you swinging in the wind, yeah yeah
mickeym
(apologies to Jake and Elwood)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: lamcrae on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:05 PM EDT |
for the American legal system, at what point can someone of some influence,
perhaps a federal judge, call this action for what it is and put an end to it.
Seen from outside the US, this whole SCO episode has long passed the point of
ludicrous. The possible (probable?) connections to Microsoft, for example, as a
convicted monopolist, are public knowledge and have been acknowledged by an
officer of Microsoft. What does it take for the American legal system to employ
some common sense. The burden now placed on the FSF as another example, is
clearly intended to hinder rather than facilitate the legal process. Is there
no-one is the American legal system that can call a spade a spade and call SCO
to account??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Thomas Downing on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:06 PM EDT |
People often post questions asking why SCO did this; or why SCO is doing
that. It seems to be a mystery. I've come to believe that while MS may have
played a part in a non-orchestrated way, it's really simpler than that. John
said it very well - and I think it applies equally to SCO/MS/AdTI versus
FLOSS:
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not
- John 1:5 (King James) --- Thomas
Downing
Principal Member Technical Staff
IPC Information Systems, Inc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
I'm going to do you a favour and point something out. If you go *anywhere* near
the suggestion that selective enforcement of copyright somehow (how? HOW?)
removes your right to enforce it at all, how many people are going to point out
that you selective enforce your own (alleged) copyrights?
Answer: everyone but the charlatans that serve you as lawyers.
You can't win, Darl Vader.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
Looking at the whole SCO vs Linux affair, and on the DMCA related issues I'm
just wondring - is the US a democracy or a "firmocracy"?
It looks like a war: big firms vs the society. The society has gathered too big
power (mainly thanks to the Internet allowing the low cost, uncontrolled
communication and cooperation between independent individuals), and the big
firms are really threatened by that.
And the law in this conflict protects these firms against the society.
So what is the role of the law in the democracy?
Who is creating the law in the democracy?
Isn't just the society who creates the law?
May be it is a time for changing the law? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: skidrash on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
friend of the court briefs?
I recall reading an article about Oracle's
legal department drawing up some contracts and making them generic, then putting
them in the public domain, for anyone to use.
The aim was to reduce
recurring legal fees as the same contracts are renegotiated and re-studied
constantly.
one source, not the best[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:23 PM EDT |
More SCO fishing I assume.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:30 PM EDT |
Noticed that they no longer claim to own Unix. Also, check out the draconian
copyright notice.
Press
Release
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:40 PM EDT |
Link
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:49 PM EDT |
Will it work? I wouldn't be surprised.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:56 PM EDT |
Too bad isn't there a trap door in the courtroom floor
that opens when the judge pulls the handle and SCO would
just disappear.
SCO is worse than dog poop on your shoe.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: eggplant37 on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:27 PM EDT |
The best thing anyone could do in this case is to pull out the ol' checkbook or
plastic and make a
donation to FSF. An associate membership costs $120 annual and can be
done in $10 monthly billings against a credit card. Alternatively, you may
also donate any amount you wish directly, again using a credit card, and
snailmailing a check won't hurt, either.
I just got done doing such
myself, donated $50 toward the cause.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JustFree on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:33 PM EDT |
Does the fact that SCO wants to know all communication between Red Hat and FSF
undermines SCO's defence against Red Hat lawsuit?
---
as in free speech get it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:33 PM EDT |
Can't FSF hire somebody to dig up the necessary (and relevant) info for the SCO
subpoena? This would make all costs direct, and SCO should pay all the costs.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: John on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:42 PM EDT |
This could turn out to be pretty bad for SCOG, say we all write a letter to FSF
mentioning SCOG and the GPL and pointing out how they (SCOG) are infringing it
(when it is convenient for them to do so).
In particular mentioning all the contribution to GNU/Linux by Caldera's
employees etc...
All those letters will work against SCOG in the end :^)
---
JJJ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jack Hughes on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:47 PM EDT |
There is an associate membership program.
http://member.fsf.org
Membership is
$120 per annum. You get a
<something>@member.fsf.org vanity email
address and
a
bootable GNU/Linux membership card.
Plus the
satisfaction of funding the FSF in its struggle
to defend free software etc. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
http://groklaw.bcgreen.c
om/SCO/SCO/fsf-subpoena/ has the PDF split up into single-page PNGs and pbms
... Feel free to read or transcribe.
--- Powerful, committed
communication. Touching the jewel within each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:52 PM EDT |
When SCO asks for:
4. All guidelines, policies,
procedures, documents, memoranda, notes and/or manuals relating to the
enforcement and enforceability of the GPL.
It would be
funny if FSF delivered a copy of Title 17 to them, wouldn't it? SCO:
The "never ending fun" company :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
Oh I get it.
All you people with your tinfoil theories about
pump-and-dump manoeuvres and Microsoft using SCO as sock puppets and so on are
wrong. The reason SCO is doing what it's doing is just paranoia. Plain, simple,
pure paranoia.
You see, Darl's been hitting the gin and amphetamines a
bit too heavy as of late, and he had an epiphany,sometime in 2003. He now knows
why SCO has been failing recently. IBM are out to get him.
He's seeing
IBM everywhere. IBM is stalking him and ruining his life. Linux - is IBM.
Groklaw - is IBM. The bastard who cut him off on the freeway last week - was
working for IBM. IBM hid his remote control behind the sofa last night. SCO are
asking for the delays, not because they're trying to obfuscate the legal process
but because Darl really does think that his code is in there, somewhere.
He's tried everything, reading it backwards, rot13ing it, putting it through a
l337-filter, but goddamn it, those tricksy IBM guys know how to cover up a bit
of copyright theft. If only he had a little more time...
This FSF
document shakedown is the same idea. Darl wants to look through every piece of
FSF documentation for the one secret bit of paper that says 'IBM assigns the
copyrights for all it's Linux code to the Free Software Foundation in return for
it's sterling services in spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt about the evils
of Unix, Microsoft and Apple software'. Darl really believes that contract is in
there somewhere, because, IBM is freaking EVERYWHERE dammit, and they're out to
get him![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ujay on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 06:04 PM EDT |
article:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&sto
ryID=5195414
Makes me wonder if the real problem was a flood of emails
objecting to Germany's changed vote on Tuesday.
A flood of
half a million unwanted email messages has laid low the accounts of thousands of
German politicians and civil servants this week."
While
they make it sound like spam, it only states 'unwanted email', and no
examples/description of what the content were is
given.
--- Programmer: A biological system designed to convert coffee
and cheesies into code [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: odysseus on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 07:01 PM EDT |
Hmmmm.....
I see this as a fishing expedition in preparation for
bringing suit against the FSF for the GNU part of
GNU/Linux. Remember, Linux is just the kernel, GNU
provides the rest that's required for a workable OS. So,
by SCO logic, SCO "owns" UNIX, GNU is required to be added
to Linux to have a usable "UNIX-derivative", therefore GNU
must also be "derived" from UNIX, therefore the FSF needs
to be sued into oblivion...
In /. speak:
1) Sue FSF using derivatives theory
2) Gain GNU copyrights
3) Profit!!!!
John.
P.S. I'd love to be there when the FSF challenges this in
the Judges chambers. On the FSF side, Moglan, Lessig and
a couple other Law Profs from major law schools vs Kevin
McB, that would be worth the price of admission :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
6. All guidelines, policies, procedures, and/or manuals
concerning the process of reviewing or vetting source code for copyright, patent
and/or trade secret violations in open source/free software development
processes.
Um, IANAL, but this seems to me that TSG is
looking for evidence of wrongdoing by FSF. How in the world can TSG justify this
subpoena request in context of TSG v. IBM, especially since TSG v. IBM does not
concern copyright, patent, or even trade secret issues, but only breach of
contract? None of what they ask for in this paragraph is relevant to any
contract between TSG and IBM. (Heck, it's not even relevant to any license
agreement between AT&T and IBM...)
--- "When I say something, I
put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 07:12 PM EDT |
Since it is I, as a developer that chooses to use the GPL or LGPL license, not
FSF, would an affidavit (or something similar) on that be of help, to prove that
it is up to the single developer to make the choice of license to go with, and
that I, as a licensor, has the rights to uphold and enforce the GPL for my work,
OR, if i choose, to use FSF as a "front", if my work is part of a
greater product, since it would be impractical, though possible and a lot more
messy to enforce the GPL one by one... ?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
It's been a few years since I updated my research on this, but there's a fair
body of federal discovery case law holding that document requests for all
documents "relating to" a subject or "concerning" a subject
are so ambiguous and vague as to be unanswerable. Note that nearly all of SCO's
request categories suffer from this defect.
The FSF raising such objections, if successful, would have the twin advantages
of (1) forcing SCO to be far more specific in its requests; and (2) delaying the
time the FSF ultimately must provide documents.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: odysseus on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 07:16 PM EDT |
Here's how I see the FSF responding...
1. All documents
concerning any communication
between the Free Software Foundation and IBM
regarding
UNIX...
FSF: Get them from IBM
2. All
documents concerning any communication
between The Free Software Foundation
and IBM relating to
The SCO Group.
FSF: Get them from IBM
3. All documents and communications concerning
alleged, potential or
actual violations of the GPL ...
FSF: Too broad, not relevent to
case, breaches
confidentiality agreements, privaleged documents
4. All guidelines, policies, procedures, documents,
memoranda, notes
and/or manuals relating to the
enforcement and enforceability of the GPL.
FSF: See our website, it's all there, except the
privaleged
material
5. All documents sufficient to identify all
assignments
of software to The Free Software
Foundation...
FSF: Too broad,
not relevent to case, breaches
confidentiality agreements, privaleged
documents
6. All guidelines, policies, procedures, and/or
manuals concerning the process of reviewing or vetting
source code for
copyright, patent and/or trade secret
violations in open source/free software
development
processes.
FSF: See our website, it's all there
7. All documents and communications between and
amongst The Free
Trade Software Foundation, Richard
Stallman, Eben Moglen and/or Linus
Torvalds ...
FSF: Too broad, not relevent to case, breaches
confidentiality, privaleged documents
FSF:Your honour, we're happy to
compy with a more
specific request, but SCO seems to have problems with
specifity as you may have noticed. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 07:28 PM EDT |
But the Free Software Foundation does not recognize "Linux" as an
operating system and does not participate in "open source"
development...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
As I'm sure a few GrokLaw Readers have already speculated, this subpoena
seems like a remote control information gathering exercise by Microsoft, while
on the surface seeming (and being) like an attack on the FSF. If you are
thinking with old-world combattive business practices in mind, you might think
to yourself, "I'll examine (eavesdrop) the communication between my enemies so I
can disrupt their harmony and at the same time learn their plans." Of course,
most, if not all, of the plans of the free software community are open to the
world and doesn't seem to offer an advantage, but sowing discord amongst the
free software community itself seems rather like the next step of a well planned
strategy.
If MoneyStinkSoft and SUNMongerSystems
(this is a supposition, mind you) have thought things through, they will have
anticipated that beating the open source/free software movement will entail more
than just a ludicrous, fraudulent, frivolous set of lawsuits. Specifically they
will try now to disrupt the cooperation that exists amongst free software
proponents. While time may not be completely on their side, they have a fair
amount of manpower (erm, lawyer power that is) and substantial sums of money
with which to thwart the individuals that make free software so great. So armed
with all the new information (you don't expect SCO to keep a secret now, do
you?) they will hopefully have not obtained from this subpoena, they will be
able to launch a new set of suits against individuals, their collective
organizations, and the software they create. This accomplishes some of
the same things the original SCO lawsuit has done. It has spread doubt and
slowed some of the commercial offerings and use related to free software. It
has distracted free software contributors from their work. It has consumed
large amounts of resources of the free software community to combat even though
from the first month of asking "where's the code?" everyone knew it to be
frivolous.
For these reasons, the more I think about SCO and it's
numerous lawsuits, bad press releases, and ADTI's rave review of a libelous
book, the more I think that this is a diversion and a stepping stone to squelch
the free voice and movement of free software in general. Linux is a large
threat to MSFT and SUNW, but the real threat is the new model of development.
That's been the target all along. SCO tested those waters with its letter to
congress about the GNU GPL being communistic or supporting terror.
It's
all hooey, but fighting will still be an arduous journey. Don't give up, don't
give in, and if they sue you, don't sell out. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: maco on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
On the FSF link they ask for you to join, to become a "card carrying
member" of the Free Software Foundation. Am I paranoid, or can I already
hear, "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Free Software
Foundation?"?
Hint: we already have the briefcase filled with, in leu of the 451 employees of
the State Department who are avowed Communists, 1.5 million lines of code in the
Linux kernel copied verbatum from Unix System V.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 10:07 PM EDT |
Tonight, as a direct result of the information here on Groklaw and PJ's (and
many others!) efforts, I did something other than passive support. I joined the
FSF as an associate member. This is the best way for us to help in the battle
we are now fighting. It is a battle, perhaps even a war that can only be won if
we take action in all ways. Groklaw is serving the purpose of the intel/scout,
but we need more. I can only thank your all for your efforts - Keep the Faith![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ErichTheWebGuy on Thursday, May 20 2004 @ 12:06 AM EDT |
Well folks, mark your calendar, for this one promises to be a doozy.
SCO Group Second Quarter 2004 Webcast and Conference
Call
Scheduled to start Wed, Jun 2, 2004, 11:00 am Eastern
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/1/43141.htm
l--- Striving daily to be RFC-2550 compliant [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jkondis on Thursday, May 20 2004 @ 01:59 AM EDT |
"Information, what city, please?"
- "Yeah, hi, I'm looking for a number for the Open Software Development
Labs. I am not sure what city it's in."
"Yes, sir, just a moment while I look that up for you... Um... Do you have
a spelling for that?"
- "Sure. O-P-E-N -space- Software S-O-F-T-W-A-R-E -space- Development
D-E-V-..."
"Never mind sir, I think I got the spelling OK, but their number doesn't
seem to be listed."
- "Really? Do you have any address information for them?"
"... No, sorry, sir, I can't find anything."
- "That's strange. I work for the FSF, sometimes called GNU, G-N-U, and,
uh, by the way have you ever heard of us?"
"No."
- "OK so I work for the FSF and we've been subpoenaed for documents and
other information related to the Open Software Development Labs. So we're kind
of in a bind here because we don't even know who they are."
"Sir, do you think they might have spelled it wrong or mixed up the name a
little bit?"
- "No, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do that. It's related to a $5 billion
plus lawsuit, and they've been paying their lawyers millions of dollars, so I
seriously doubt they would get the name wrong."
"I don't know what to tell you sir."
- "Well, thanks anyway. I guess I'll just have to call the lawyers again.
I hope they don't put me on hold this time."...
---
Don't steal. Microsoft hates competition.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 20 2004 @ 02:38 AM EDT |
but not yet available at this time:
# 152 - Cross-motion by Intl Bus Mach Inc for partial summary judgment on claim
for declaratory judgment of non-infringement (blk) [Entry date 05/19/04]
# 153 - Memorandum by Intl Bus Mach Inc in support of [152-1] cross motion for
partial summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement
(blk) [Entry date 05/19/04]
# 154 - Declaration of Daniel Frye Re: [152-1] cross motion for partial summary
judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement (blk) [Entry date
05/19/04]
# 155 - Memorandum by Intl Bus Mach Inc in opposition to [144-1] amended motion
to Dismiss, [144-2] amended motion or to Stay Count Ten of Counterclaim-Pla
Ibm's Second Amended Counterclaims Against SCO, (blk) [Entry date 05/19/04]
# 156 - Declaration of Amy F. Sorenson Re: [155-1] opposition memorandum (blk)
[Entry date 05/19/04]
# 157 - Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy Re: [152-1] cross motion for partial
summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. (Please
Note: This is an oversized document and has been placed in an expandable folder
next to the case file.) (blk) [Entry date 05/19/04] [Edit date 05/19/04][ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 20 2004 @ 09:11 AM EDT |
"In the middle of the 18th century, all the morons moved to Utah. "
...from a 16 year old's GCSE exam paper.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 20 2004 @ 09:55 AM EDT |
Waiiiiiiit..didnt the mplayer development team take someone to court for GPL
violation? didnt they use mplayer code, and then deny it..even though their
software had support for file formats only mplayer did.
fsf certainly arent the only ones who enforce the gpl.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: joeblakesley on Thursday, May 20 2004 @ 11:46 AM EDT |
After reading this crazy subpoena (which has nothing to do with TSG v. IBM) and
the email from Linus Torvalds to Kenneth Brown, I'm waiting for TSG to subpoena
two more parties (i.e.: the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus).
BTW, does anyone know who the Free Trade Software Foundation and Open Software
Development Labs are?
---
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 20 2004 @ 01:13 PM EDT |
As I read the article you wrote, I started to wonder:
How long are businesses required to keep communications (such as E-mails and
internal memos) on file? If asked by subpoena to produce all communications,
what is actually being asked (in a time sense).
Depending on the changing business relationships, I can imagine that some
managers would want some communications to disappear as soon as legally allowed.
Others would want them buried and not found, and some might follow the path of
the "Nixon tapes" - oops, all copies were accidently erased.
Knowing as much as I do about how easy it is to alter documents stored
electronically, how can one be certain that the archived copy is true to the
original?
--------------------------
nfaw = Night Flyer at Work
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Franki on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 09:59 AM EDT |
Do volunteer groups have to have a retention policy?
I don't know about other people, but I have not really hung on to much mail that
is older then about a year.
rgds
Franki[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: technoCon on Saturday, May 29 2004 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
Let's suppose I am in the habit of deleting emails as soon as I reply to them.
Particularly, those that may be troublesome in the future. In this mode, I am
neither in a law suit, nor do I anticipate litigation. I'm just making sure the
universe of stuff to search in answer to a possible, but unanticipated, subpoena
or discovery order is managable.
What is required of me?
I've read these demands for information of IBM to SCO and now SCO to FSF and my
mind boggles at the expense and hassle of complying therewith. How can someone
order his affairs so as to deal with this potential threat?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|