decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
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.


  


SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online | 398 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here Please
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 | # ]

I hope they do as CA did ..... You CANNOT trust SCOG.
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 | # ]

looking to take more out-of-context quotes?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 01:54 PM EDT
Just like the Stallman & Perens quotes they used earlier?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Great..
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 | # ]

URLs and Other Topics/Links here please
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 01:58 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
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 | # ]

Help me out. Why is this not dismissed/laughed out on its face?
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 | # ]

IP laws are so broad ....
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 | # ]

SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
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 | # ]

Can't we have the ruling on relevance first
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 | # ]

    FSF is not a party to the suit
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    Skeletons in the closet
    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 | # ]

    Back to my "open signalling" hypothesis
    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 | # ]

    Vexatious litigant?
    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 | # ]

    Can't two play this game?
    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 | # ]

    The other aspects of irrelevance
    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 | # ]

    All reasonable copying costs
    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 | # ]

    MS FINGERPRINTS
    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 | # ]

    Relevance?
    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
    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    A kernel developer speaks - 'trust me'
    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 | # ]

    Selective Copyright Enforcement
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    OT: Bryan Sparks
    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 | # ]

    Ridiculous
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    Asking the FSF about Open Source?
    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 | # ]

    FSF moving behind scenes?
    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 | # ]

    OT - StockWatch project?
    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 | # ]

    Number three could be interesting.
    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 | # ]

    Stupid Questions
    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 | # ]

    Time to fire up the FOSS gang
    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 | # ]

    That's actually somewhat amusing...
    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 | # ]

    Time for FSF to take the gloves of
    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 | # ]

    I'm a SCO man
    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 | # ]

    • I'm a SCO man - Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:10 PM EDT
    • I'm a SCO man - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:21 PM EDT
      • I'm a SCO man - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 09:45 PM EDT
    While I have a great deal of respect...
    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 | # ]

    It's an old, old story; or the explanation for SCO
    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 | # ]

    ATTENTION SCO
    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 | # ]

    It looks like a war - big firms against society
    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 | # ]

    Could FSF get ORACLE to help out?
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:23 PM EDT
    More SCO fishing I assume.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    OT: SCO 2nd quarter conference call
    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 | # ]

    OT: Apple patents windows
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:40 PM EDT
    Link

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Another obvious delay tactic
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 19 2004 @ 04:49 PM EDT
    Will it work? I wouldn't be surprised.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    Pull out your checkbooks, kids...
    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 | # ]

    Red Hat ?
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    Challenge or opportunity?
    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 | # ]

    Well, it's made me join the FSF
    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 | # ]

    split into pieces.
    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 | # ]

    A bit of help for FSF
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    OT: German Gov't mail systems hit
    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 | # ]

    Fishing for the next law suit???
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    Requested documents are challengable on grounds of vagueness and ambiguity
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    Ulterior motive possibility
    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 | # ]

    Joining FSF
    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 | # ]

    Support for FSF
    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 | # ]

    Slightly OT: SCOX Q2 Conference Call/Webcast
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    new documents listed on tuxrocks
    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 | # ]

    From the mouths of babes...
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    SCO's Subpoena to the FSF Is Now Online
    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 | # ]

    Question to P.J....- nfaw
    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 | # ]

    FSF is a group of volunteers though..
    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 | # ]

    What are reasonable retention requirements?
    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 | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )