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 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.

*************************************


  


SCO Subpoena to the FSF - as text | 104 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here Please
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 28 2004 @ 03:04 AM EDT
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Recursive Definitions
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 | # ]

URLs and OffTopic comments here please
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 | # ]

Interesting choise of words..
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 | # ]

SCO Subpoena to the FSF - as text
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 | # ]

OT: groupware tool
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 | # ]

SCO Subpoena to the FSF - as text
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 | # ]

Some missing definitions
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 | # ]

SCO Subpoena to the FSF - as text
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 | # ]

SCO Subpoena to the FSF - as text
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 | # ]

SCO Subpoena to the FSF - as text
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 | # ]

You know what I hope?
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 | # ]

Legal Basis for this Subpoena?
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 | # ]

8.e. All contracts or agreements with any other Linux distributor or company
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 | # ]

"Be careful what you ask for"
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 | # ]

Real World - How will FSF fight this subpeona?
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 | # ]

SCO Subpoena to the FSF - nfaw
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 | # ]

Subpoena asks for legal advice?
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 | # ]

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 )