SCO Subpoena to the FSF - as text |
|
Friday, May 28 2004 @ 02:47 AM EDT
|
We (actually JeR) figured out a way to present the SCO subpoena issued against the FSF as text here on Groklaw. Geeklog choked on the original HTML. So, here it is in its totality.
This was a joint project of Gerrard de Jonge (transcription), darkonc and JeR (initial HTML and final HTML editing, respectively).
*************************************
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
NEW YORK WASHINGTON DC FLORIDA CALIFORNIA NEW HAMPSHIRE
November 5, 2003
Richard M. Stallman
Free Software Foundation. Inc.
[address]
Re: The SCO Group v. International Business Machines
Corporation
To Whom it May Concern:
Please find enclosed a subpoena for the production of documents to Free
Software Foundation, Inc. If you have any questions about the scope of the
subpoena or have any concerns about my other mater, please let me know. You
need not appear at the place and time specified in the subpoena if you
provide copies of the requested documents before that date.
Also enclosed is a witness fee check in the amount of $30.00 that can be
applied toward copying costs if you choose to produce the documents in lieu
of a deposition. Boise Schiller & Flexner will reimburse you for all
reasonable duplication costs. Thank you for your assistance in this
matter.
Very truly yours
[signature]
David K. Markarian
Enclosures
DKM/tlp
*************************************
Issued by the
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
District of Massachusetts
The SCO Group
V.
International Business Machines Corporation
SUBPOENA IN A CIVIL CASE
2:03CV029
Case Number:1 District of Utah
TO:
Free Software Foundation, Inc.
[address]
YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States District court at the
place, date, and time specified below to testify in the above case.
PLACE OF TESTIMONY |
COURTROOM |
[blank] |
[blank] |
YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the place, date, and time specified below
to testify at the taking of a deposition in the above case.
PLACE OF DEPOSITION |
DATE AND TIME |
[blank] |
[blank] |
[X mark] YOU ARE COMMANDED to produce and permit
inspection and copying of the following documents or objects at the place,
date, and time specified below (list documents or objects): See Attached
Exhibit A.
PLACE |
DATE AND TIME |
Boston & Waltham - Eyal Court Reporting
[address] |
9:00 AM on November 21, 2003 |
OR you may also comply by mailing the aforesaid documents
to:
Boies, Schiller & Flexner L.L.P.
[address]
PREMISES |
DATE AND TIME |
[blank] |
[blank] |
Any organization not a party to this suit that is subpoenaed for the
taking of a deposition shall designate one or more officers, directors, or
managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and
may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person
will testify. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 30(b)(6).
ISSUING OFFICER'S SIGNATURE AND TITLE (INDICATE IF ATTORNEY FOR
PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT) |
DATE |
[Signature]
Attorney for Plaintiff
The SCO Group, Inc. |
November 5 ,2003 |
ISSUING OFFICER'S NAME, ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER
MARK J. HEISE, ESQ., Boies, Schiller & Flexner L.L.P
[address, phone]
|
(See Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D on next
page)
1 If action is pending in
district other than district of issuance, state district under case
number.
PROOF OF SERVICE
DATE |
PLACE |
[blank] |
[blank] |
SERVED
SERVED ON (PRINT NAME) |
MANNER OF SERVICE |
[blank] |
[blank] |
SERVED BY (PRINT NAME) |
TITLE |
[blank] |
[blank] |
DECLARATION OF SERVER
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of
America that foregoing information contained in the Proof of Service is true
and correct.
Executed on [blank]
DATE
[blank]
SIGNATURE OF SERVER
[blank]
ADDRESS OF SERVER
_________________________________
Rule 45, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Parts C & D
(c) PROTECTION OF PERSONS SUBJECT TO SUBPOENAS.
(1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a
subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court on behalf of which
the subpoena was issued shall enforce this duty and impose upon the party or
attorney in breach of this duty an appropriate sanction which may include,
but is not limited to, lost earnings and reasonable attorney's fee.
(2) (A) A person commanded to produce and permit inspection and copying of
designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, or inspection of
premises need not appear in person at the place of production or inspection
unless commanded to appear for deposition, hearing or trial.
(B) Subject to paragraph (d)(2) of this rule, a person commanded to
produce and permit inspection and copying may, within 14 days after service
of subpoena or before the time specified for compliance if such time is less
than 14 days after service, serve upon the party or attorney designated in
the subpoena written objection to inspection or copying of any or all of the
designated materials or of the premises. If objection is made, the party
serving the subpoena shall not be entitled to inspect and copy materials or
inspect the premises except pursuant to an order of the court by which the
subpoena was issued. If objection has been made, the party serving the
subpoena may, upon notice to the person commanded to produce, move at any
time for an order to compel the production. Such an order to comply
production shall protect any person who is not a party or an officer to a
party from significant expense resulting from the inspection and copying
commanded.
(3) (A) On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall
squash or modify the subpoena if it
(i) fails to allow reasonable time for compliance,
(ii) requires a person who is not party or an officer of a party to travel to
a place more than 100 miles from the place where that person resides, is
employed or regularly transacts business in person except that, subject to
the provisions of clause (c)(3)(B)(iii) of this rule, such a person may in
order to attend trial be commanded to travel from any such place within the
state in which the trial is held, or
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter and no
exception or waiver applies, or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) If a subpoena
(i) requires disclosure of a trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information, or
(ii) requires disclosure of an unretained expert's opinion or information
not describing specific events or occurrences in dispute and resulting from
the expert's study made not at the request of any party, or
(iii) requires a person who is not a party or an officer of a party to incur
substantial expense to travel more than 100 miles to attend trial, the court
may, to protect a person subject to or affected by the subpoena, quash or
modify the subpoena, or, if the party in who behalf the subpoena is issued
shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
otherwise met without undue hardship and assures that the person to whom the
subpoena is addressed will be reasonably compensated, the court may order
appearance or production only upon specified conditions.
(d) DUTIES IN RESPONDING TO SUBPOENA
(1) A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents shall produce
them as they are kept in usual course of business or shall organize and label
them to correspond with the categories in the demand.
(2) When information subject to a subpoena is withheld on a claim that it
is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation materials, the
claim shall be made expressly and shall be supported by a description of the
nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced that is
sufficient to enable the demanding party to contest the claim.
*************************************
ATTACHMENT A TO SUBPOENA TO THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION
You are instructed to produce the following documents at the time and
place specified in the subpoena:
Documents to be produced
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 communication 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, l999.
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 an/or trade
secret violations in open source/free software development processes.
7) All documents and/or communications between and amongst The Free Trade
Software Foundation, Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen an/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
Instructions and Definitions
A. Definitions
1) The term "Free Software Foundation" shall mean and include,
collectively and/or individually "Free Software Foundation" all of
its directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants,
attorneys, sales representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect
contractors, entities, that were acquired by or merged with Free Software
Foundation, subsidiaries of Free Software Foundation and/or all other persons
acting on behalf of Free Software Foundation.
2) The term "communication" shall mean any transmittal of
information, whether oral or written, including correspondence, electronic
mail and other internet transmissions, web pages, Internet Relay Chat logs,
facsimile transmissions, telecopies, recordings in any medium of oral
communications, telephone and message logs, and notes or memoranda relating
to written or oral communications.
3) The term "concerning" shall mean relating to, referring to,
reflecting, describing, evidencing, referencing, discussing or
constituting.
4) The term "document" shall be synonymous in meaning and usage
to the broadest scope of the term used in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The term "document" shall include without
limitation all written, phonic, graphic or recorded matter, including without
limitation. information stored on computers, disks, tapes (i.e., magnetic or
other storage media), World Wide Web pages, and electronic mailing lists.
The term "document" specifically includes electronic mail
("e-mail") and any attachments and files created, maintained, or
existing in electronic form.
5) The term "IBM" shall mean and include, collectively and/or
individually, International Business Machines Corporation and all its
directors. officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys,
sales representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect
contractors, entities that were acquired or merged with International
Business Machines Corporation, subsidiaries of International Business
Machines Corporation and/or all other persons acting on behalf of
International Business Machines Corporation including Sequent Computer
Systems, Inc.
6) The term "Include" or "including" shall mean
including without limitation.
7) The term "GPL" means all versions of the GNU General Public
License.
8) The term "person" includes natural persons and all private
and public entities.
9) The term "you" means the Free Software Foundation and any of
its directors, officers, employees, and/or trustees.
10) The term "vetting" means screening or checking.
11) The term "Red Hat" shall mean and include, collectively
and/or individually "Red Hat" and all of its directors, officers,
authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives,
distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors, entities, that were
acquired by or merged with Red Hat, subsidiaries of Red Hat and/or all other
persons acting on behalf of Red Hat.
12) The term "SuSE" shall mean and include, collectively and/or
individually "SuSE" and all of its directors, officers, authorized
agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales representatives,
distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors, entities, that were
acquired by or merged with SuSE, subsidiaries of SuSE and/or all other
persons acting on behalf of SuSE.
B. Instructions
1) Each paragraph herein should be construed independently and, unless
otherwise stated, without reference to any other paragraph for the purpose of
limitation.
2) Unless otherwise specified, the documents requested are the responsive
documents in your possession, control or custody that were prepared, written,
sent dated, received, applicable or in effect at any time up to the date of
your compliance with this demand.
3) Each requested document shall be produced in its entirety, If a
document responsive to any request cannot be produced in full, it shall be
produced to the extent possible with an explanation stating why production of
the remainder is not possible.
4) Unless otherwise indicated, all requests are for January 1, 1999 to the
present.
5) All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced
in the same order as they are kept or maintained in the ordinary course of
business and, where attached, shall not separated or disassembled.
6) With respect to any document responsive to this request that is
withheld from production based upon a claim of privilege, please provide the
information required pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
7) If for reasons other than a claim of privilege, you refuse to provide
any document requested herein, state the grounds upon which the refusal is
based with sufficient specificity to permit a determination of the propriety
of such refusal.
8) If there are no documents responsive to any paragraph set forth in the
request, please provide a written response so stating.
*************************************
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 03:04 AM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 03:05 AM EDT |
<i>Definitions
...
6) The term "Include" or "including" shall mean including
without limitation.
</i>
Nice, RMS likes recursive definitions.
"including" means the same as "... without limitation without
limitation without limitation".
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 03:08 AM EDT |
Hi.
Please use following syntax to make clickable links.
<A HREF="http://www.address.com/page.htm">Clickable
link</A>
Do not forget to select "html formated" as a post mode.
Have a nice day
Stano[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 03:35 AM EDT |
The first line requests documentation on 'AIX, DYNIX, LINUX, or any other UNIX
based operating system'.
The choise of words implies that they still claim Linux to be a UNIX
derivative.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: scott_R on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 03:37 AM EDT |
No problem. The FSF should just send SCO a link to a Google, Yahoo, etc.,
search with those terms included, and a handful of "offline"
documents, if they exist.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 03:38 AM EDT |
Hi,
I am looking for the article about a certain American University working on an
open source project, I think it was a kind of a groupware tool, that they will
publish under a GPL license.
There was an article on here somewhere in the last three weeks, but I can't find
it.
Tx[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: scott_R on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 03:47 AM EDT |
"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
The "agreement/contract" is the GPL, me thinks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 04:09 AM EDT |
The term "Free Software Foundation" shall mean and include, collectively
and/or individually "Free Software Foundation" all of its directors, officers,
authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales
representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors,
entities, that were acquired by or merged with Free Software Foundation,
subsidiaries of Free Software Foundation and/or all other persons acting on
behalf of Free Software Foundation. [emphasis added]
Given that anyone
who redistributes any of the GNU toolset could be considered "distributors", and
people who donate they copyrights to FSF might be considered "consultants" or
"contractors", couldn't the FSF require SCO to write a definition tailored for
the FSF, rather than a boilerplate definition? --- Give a man a match,
and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the
rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: scott_R on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 04:26 AM EDT |
Okay, my read, from the top, because this is too amazing to just do in a couple
comments.
--"1) The term "Free Software Foundation" shall mean and include,
collectively and/or individually "Free Software Foundation" all of its
directors, officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales
representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors,
entities, that were acquired by or merged with Free Software Foundation,
subsidiaries of Free Software Foundation and/or all other persons acting on
behalf of Free Software Foundation."
No problem, as long as SCO provides all information from all employees from
before SCO was SCO. The FSF can't fulfill these demands, simply because there
is no way to fulfill the entities clause without undue burden to the FSF (it's
volunteers, not a company, something SCO hasn't taken into account.) In
addition, meeting this requirement would mean SCO would have to issue it's own
internal documents to the FSF or face contempt of court. Overly broad beyond
SCO's recognition.
--"2) The term "communication" shall mean any transmittal of
information, whether oral or written, including correspondence, electronic mail
and other internet transmissions, web pages, Internet Relay Chat logs, facsimile
transmissions, telecopies, recordings in any medium of oral communications,
telephone and message logs, and notes or memoranda relating to written or oral
communications."
See my argument in the other post. As far as oral arguments are concerned, how
do you reproduce a record, as SCO stated recordings as a separate entity?
Atmospheric echos? :)
--"5) The term "IBM" shall mean and include, collectively and/or
individually, International Business Machines Corporation and all its directors.
officers, authorized agents, employees, consultants, attorneys, sales
representatives, distributors, dealers, direct and indirect contractors,
entities that were acquired or merged with International Business Machines
Corporation, subsidiaries of International Business Machines Corporation and/or
all other persons acting on behalf of International Business Machines
Corporation including Sequent Computer Systems, Inc."
How in the heck is the FSF supposed to produce documents from IBM's dealers,
distributors, so on and so forth? They are likely under NDA, but more
importantly, the FSF wouldn't have problems with IBM's partners, for the same
reason SCO isn't suing the podunk companies in SLC. Why would they deal with
these folks, when IBM is so accessible?
--"6) The term "Include" or "including" shall mean
including without limitation."
Impossible to meet, as this could concievably include details on what those
executives had for breakfast. There are always limitations, but this is
boilerplate.
--"9) The term "you" means the Free Software Foundation and any
of its directors, officers, employees, and/or trustees."
Not past and future ones as well, despite SCO wanting all past documents from
others?
--"11/12)" see 5 above.
"B. Instructions"
"4) Unless otherwise indicated, all requests are for January 1, 1999 to the
present."
So, SCO has (?) determined the date of infringement, give or take 5 years? They
should be required to prove why that date is significant.
"5) All documents produced in response to this subpoena shall be produced
in the same order as they are kept or maintained in the ordinary course of
business and, where attached, shall not separated or disassembled"
In other words, a cluster-fork of mailing list comments and other stuff, giving
SCO another reason to delay proceedings.
"7) If for reasons other than a claim of privilege, you refuse to provide
any document requested herein, state the grounds upon which the refusal is based
with sufficient specificity to permit a determination of the propriety of such
refusal."
Like having to print nearly 15 years of internet-available information?
And the killer statement:
"8) If there are no documents responsive to any paragraph set forth in the
request, please provide a written response so stating."
There is no documentation that the FSF has that has anything to do with the SCO
case, because the FSF has to do with POSIX standardized software, and recognized
standards are exempt from infringement claims.
I'm probably way off on some of these, but wouldn't it be nice if laws were
simple and encouraged benefits towards society as a whole? :D[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 05:32 AM EDT |
IMHO this does fit in very nicely with PJ's earlier commentary WRT the 9th
Circuit and using SSO vs AFC as showm here. IMHO
this is *not* about SCO v IBM, or AZ, or anything in particular like that; it is
abour re-writing copyright law to disfavor certain kinds of license.
(Sarcastically speaking, "Of course the Sonny Bono act and Fritz Hollings (AKA
"The Senator from Disney") are OK."). I for one was thrilled when the copyright
extensions were passed because (as I supposed), they applied equally to Linux
and GPL. Never mind that I could not *legally* play a bought and paid for DVD
under Linux, which was in itself produced using Linux. (The movie "Shrek"). As
it is, I returned it and got my money back. But I digress. AFAIC, the only
reason to subpoena the FSF in such a way is to further the argument that the GPL
is "Unenforcable", "void", etc. So, is the rest of copyright equally void and
unenforcable? Now, where have we heard this before, and from whom? Notice that
Eben Moglen doesn't invoke the GPL itself; he only mentions copyright law. As
long as I'm here and ranting on a rampage, I would like to know what gives
anyone the right to distribute the things I have done under any other
terms. There is no small irony in the way some corporations have used the BSD
network stack and related tools. Run "strings ftp.exe" sometime and find out.
IMHO this is near the heart of the matter: To avoid re-inventing the wheel and
still stay within the bounds of the law, and just barely at that. It never fails
to amaze me how the law is upheld in only one direction, like a form of
paralysis: having all the muscles turned in one direction. I do not begrudge
what is earned, for my own part; but outright thievery is something else, and
not fit for society, just IMHO. Then there is the other horn of the bull. For a
summary, a "dilemma" is often presented as two horns of a bull in Western
thought; if one horn doesn't kill you, the other one will. The other horn would
be patents, as currently (ab)used in the USA. PJ is directly on target and has a
bull's eye (no pun) on this one. The only worry I have is to be able to consider
both horns of the bull at once. The classical technique is to aim directly
between the eyes of the bull by presenting a third option which solves both
horns. This is not mere theory; it has shaped the language, law, customs, and
logic or Western society for milenia. Please refer to this
university, which graduated the first known class of philosophers, lawyers,
and doctors under the old Roman Curricula. They graduated the first recognized
class of Docta, (PhD's, the "doctors") "the learned" AFAIK in the form of
philosophers, lawyers, and scientists. Notice how similar the current legal
cases and formal (computer) logic are to the horns of the bull. Notice also,
how SCO, the AdTI, and MS use legal techniqes which can directly translate to
SSO, possibly making use of the dining philosophers" (Dijkstra) along
the way, doing so via different courts and jurdistictions. For Canopy Group's
shell games there is IMHO a direct parellel. --- "When we speak of free
software, we are referring to freedom, not price." -- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 06:59 AM EDT |
An expansive subpoena, to match the lack of evidence behind SCOG's allegations.
Fishing trip?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
I hope, with a deep and abiding passion, that the FSF just tells SCO to GO TO
HELL. GNU's not Unix and GNU's not Linux, and unless SCO can show infringement
in any of the PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE FSF copyrighted source, then this is a
fishing trip and nothing else.
Eben Moglen, it's time to step up and (finally) show what you're made of. Laugh
this subpoena off and then argue it in court. You do KNOW what a courtroom
looks like, right?
If the FSF co-operates with this subpoena (which is a REQUEST for information)
in any way, then SCO has already won.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arch_dude on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 10:34 AM EDT |
What is the legal basis for this subpoena? The subpoena is issued by the Utah
court as part of the SCO v IBM case. FSF is not a party to the case. It's clear
that a party can subpoena a third party, but surely there must be a valid reason
arising form the case or from discovery.
There are only two connections that I know of:
1) FSF is the author of a license that IBM chose to use for some of its
software.
2) like hundreds of others,including IBM, FSF is the owner of the copyrights of
a small amount of code in the Linux kernel.
I do not see how either of these tenuous connections can justify such a
broad-reaching subpoena.
As the writers of the GPL, FSF has the same obligations as e.g. the author of a
book of legal forms, which is essentially none. As we all know by now, a legal
document is interpreted by what is written "on its face" and not by
any extrinsics. This is particularly true of a license, since it is not signed
by the licensee and is not an agreement between two parties who may have
separate oral side agreements.
As a holder of copyrights on a small amount of kernel code, FSF has the same
very tenuous connection to SCO v IBM as all other kernel copyright holders. SCO
v IBM is not about FSF's enforcment of GPL violations of FSF code. It's about
IBM's enforcement of GPL violations of IBM code. Again, the subpoena is far too
broad for this tenuous connection. This is analagous to randomly issueing a
subpoena in a land dispute to someone who lives in the same town as the
defendant.
If I get a subpoena from out of the blue that relates to a court case that I
have no part of and only a tenuous conection to, and if hte response would cost
say $10,000 of my time and/or money, what recourse do I have?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Fruny on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
You know, that's a prime opportunity to explicitely put on the table documents
concerning Caldera's past as a Linux distributor.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tangomike on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 02:14 PM EDT |
Several posts here have suggested this could reveal some things that TSCOG would
live to regret. As I understand it, this is/was on hold.. If FSF, with a little
help from its friends, were to offer up docs on Caldera, oldSCO or other
parties, IBM just might find another gold nugget or two, at TSCOG's expense.
Footgun anyone???
---
To The SCO Group - please come back when you pass a Turing test.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: crs17 on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
I think FSF and most all of us are in agreement that this subpeona is a
ridiculous fishing expedition. But what concrete steps will FSF take to resolve
it? Will they appear in the SCO v IBM courtroom to challenge it? Will they
simply respond with most questions answered "None of your business"?
And in what time frame might this happen? Will this be visible when it happens
or be handled behind the scenes by the court?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 04:14 PM EDT |
Since 1999??!
I am stunned by the magnitude of the effort. I see rows of file cabinets of
papers to scan/copy. What a waste of manpower and resources - for a fishing
trip looking for one or two pages, that might or might not be there. I don't
really believe SCO lawyers will do much more than scan them all for a few key
words or phrases, and select a page or two.
Maybe this type af thing is a moderate annoyance for IBM, which can put a group
of management trainees on it and write it off anyway it wants. But my
impression of the FSF is that it is a not-for-profit organization, with
relatively limited resources.
phooey
----------------
nfaw = Night Flyer at Work
My Clan Motto: Veritas Vincit: Truth Conquers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: turtle on Saturday, May 29 2004 @ 12:10 AM EDT |
4) All guidelines, policies, procedures, documents, memoranda, notes and/or
manuals relating to the enforcement and enforceability of the GPL.
It
seems that here SCO is clearly asking for legal advice rather than any material
fact. I understand that you cannot file for a declaritory judgment for the
purpose of getting legal advice, would the same thing hold for Subpoenas?
Surely if you want legal advice you are meant to hire a lawyer rather than
subpoena them for any pre-existly legal advice they might have. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|