|
| Authored by: NastyGuns on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 09:40 PM EST |
Please put OT comments here.
Making links is considerate and are made as follows:
<a href="http://www.example.com">your comment here</a>
Also remember to change the post mode to "html"
---
NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back,
please keep me here." Unknown.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: NastyGuns on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 09:42 PM EST |
Please put any corrections here.
---
NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back,
please keep me here." Unknown.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 09:48 PM EST |
Is scanning a public document protected by copyright?
It would seem scanning may be a creative step?
Can you sue?
Can you apply a Creative Commons License to the scans?
It seems to me that if you add a "watermark" you could and it would
foil the evil ones.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 09:59 PM EST
- PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License - Authored by: Maserati on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 09:59 PM EST
- Use DMCA - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 10:02 PM EST
- PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 10:03 PM EST
- PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 11:20 PM EST
- PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License - Authored by: Sesostris III on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 04:21 AM EST
- Doesn't make sense to me - Authored by: Mouse on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:24 AM EST
- PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License - Authored by: fxbushman on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:47 PM EST
- Of course, SCO claims to hold the copyrights - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:49 PM EST
- it's plagiarism without citation - Authored by: jonathanbearak on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 03:49 PM EST
- PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 11:10 AM EST
- Copy and Paste ? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 07:13 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 09:48 PM EST |
Wait ... don't you mean they illegally HACKED into groklaw by circumventing
security measures! :)
If it was me, I'd be tempted to insert some creative watermarking...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: micheal on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 10:04 PM EST |
IANAL Isn't that a copyright violation? Frank does not have copyright to the
original document, but doesn't he have an automatic copyright to his scanned
version? Frank should send them a notice asking them to remove his scanned
version.
---
LeRoy -
What a wonderful day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: joe_param on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 10:11 PM EST |
| Why does this not surprise me? Tut tut. The shame of it all!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 10:23 PM EST |
I thing the classiest response to SCOG is the response of the Samba Team.
After we have ridiculed them and publicized their hypocrisy, we should emulate
the Samba Team and accept that miscreants though they may be, they are free to
use resources which are offered freely, however selectively they may choose to
use them.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 10:32 PM EST |
By scanning the ducument, you have created a copyrighted file. The contents of
the file are public record, but the file IS NOT. They could have transcribed
your PDF, scanned a copy of the printout of your PDF, or even scanned the source
yourself and not violated copyright. THEY CHOSE NOT TO! This example is
identical to the difference between copying an Ansel Adams print or going and
taking your own picture of the identical public land scene!
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!! send them a takedown notice and contact their ISP to
prepare to take them off the air.
If you do not protect your rights now, they will continue to violate yours (and
Linux contributors) IP rights as they have proven they will.
Set an example. Grow a couple if necessary. If you let this slide I will lose
a great amount of respect for this site and the Groklaw affiliated principals
involved.
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!! Publicize this as an example of the company that
claims to own IP in AIX (and Linux) has failed to respect the IP of others.
Can I say this any more strongly?!?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Yes - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 10:40 PM EST
- Nah, it's much funnier to expose their smarmitude (TM) - Authored by: OmniGeek on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 11:32 AM EST
- Correct, but...... - Authored by: tiger99 on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:43 PM EST
- no, it'd be best to make them attribute! - Authored by: trick-knee on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:55 PM EST
- PLEASE Stop the copyright violators! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 05:36 AM EST
- PLEASE let them continue - Authored by: Saturn on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 03:44 PM EST
- PLEASE Stop the copyright violators! - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 06:02 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: elhaard on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 10:42 PM EST |
What really gets me by this is the fact that they didn't even try to disguise
their copying. I would probably only take a pdf2ps | ps2pdf to make it harder to
detect. That won't remove Franks handwriting, of course, but it should change
pdfinfo and md5sum.
[dons tin-foil hat]
On the other hand, it may just be a new take on their twisted views on
copyright: Next step will be to sue PJ and Frank, claiming that they copied from
SCO. The scannings are obviously derivative works of the trial, which SCO
brought on, so they must logically own everything.
[tries to remove hat, but it seems to be stuck :-P]
Jørgen Elgaard Larsen
---
This comment is licensed under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 2.0).
Share & enjoy![ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 10:45 PM EST |
Seriously. A background watermark in light grey in each and every page won't
hurt anyone and will certainly force them to go get the documents elsewhere...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Bill The Cat on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 11:13 PM EST |
Groklaw Creative Commons License:
Attribution Required
No Commercial Use
Last I saw, there was no attribution and...
SCO Was A Commercial Enterprise
So, there's 2 strikes against them.
It's nice to see that they are such an ethical and honest company.
The more I know about Windoze, the more I LOVE Linux!
---
Bill Catz[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hbo on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 11:19 PM EST |
The longer they keep those docs up without attribution, the longer they expose
themselves to fact-checking by "mainstream" media, the longer they
risk a prominent negative article in a major news outlet. If they take them
down, then Groklaw has another story to tell the grandkids. And if they supply
the required attribution.. on second thought, Groklaw will have another story to
tell the grandkids. 8)
---
"Even if you are on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there"
- Will Rogers[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 11:29 PM EST |
IANAL but I've read a lot about copyright law and public domain and so here
goes.
1- legal decisions are public domain
-"a copy of something in the public domain will not, if it merely be a copy
support a copyright... "- L. Batlin & Son v Snyder 536 F 2d 486
"...the copyright office has refused to register many scanned images of
public domain artworks".
-The Public Domain by Stephan Fishman Page 5-33
2-Minor spelling/syntax corrections of a public domain work are not
copyrightable ( see Grove Press, Inc v Collectors Publications, Inc 264 F Supp.
603 CD Cal.967)
3-If there are handwritten notes, they on the other hand may not be public
domain. However even if they aren't if these documents were not registered
before the infringement you can not sue for attorneys fees and punitive damages.
Not that anyone would want to sue anyway.
Yes this can be considered an infraction of the copyright laws but it is minor
at best, To do anything about it is to make a MOUNTAIN out of a MOLEHILL, just
as SCO has been doing. (the DMC appeal IMO is a great example of mountains out
of moehills). And to complain may give them more standing in their claims which
may also be minor, but may be slightly less minor then in this instance.(I
noticed a troll(now deleted) asked you guys to sue, perhaps SCO knew EXACTLY
what they were going for when they copied the stuff)
What would make far more sense (to me at least) is to act as graciously as
possible to SCO in this instance. And to have a good laugh at the whole matter.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: blacklight on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 11:47 PM EST |
The fact that these court documents are public documents is incronvertible. The
fact that SCOG ripped off groklaw's copy of these documents is equally
incontrovertible. SCOG shows itself once again to be a not inconsiderable social
parasite.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: toads_for_all on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 11:56 PM EST |
This just shows that truth is funnier than fiction.
Given SCO's goal of "owning" Linux, I can't say I'm surprised they'd
use other people's work on their website.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: stevem on Friday, March 25 2005 @ 11:59 PM EST |
BWHAhahahahaahaha.
That's got to be one of the most amusing things I've seen yet. You've really got
to wonder about how dysfunctional a company can be to do something as silly as
this.
My hat is off to you SCO. Thanks for such a delightful joke.
:-)
I wonder if it's worth having a small virtual wager on what their reaction will
be? Do nothing and pretend nothing's wrong; change the documents with their own
PDF's?
Words fail...
- SteveM
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:27 AM EST |
Welcome to SCO IP
The Right Place for SCO Intellectual Property Information
Welcome to SCO IP, a site designed to provide you with
factual information around litigation related to The SCO
Group. We hope you find this site helpful in giving you
access to scanned court filings from Groklaw and Tuxrocks,
upcoming hearing and filing dates, and other valuable
information.
We though highly recommend that you go straight to Groklaw
to get more detailed information as well as fresh and fun
discussion about this funny lawsuit.
---
-Skuggi.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: inode_buddha on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:37 AM EST |
| I just learned a *lot* about document tracking. Up to now, I had naively thought
that *nobody* would do such a thing as snarfing your documents like that. I
guess I was wrong. Cue to Joni Mitchell singing "Both Sides
Now". ---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:42 AM EST |
SCOG had access their filings in text format. They could have posted them in
text PDFs. They had access the the opposition filings in original paper format
and possibly in text format, depending on how SCOG's lawyers were served with
the files.
They chose, rather than get the certified copies from their attorneys or to use
the text copies from their attorneys, to use the PDFs from opposition web
sites.
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Woad_Warrior on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:22 AM EST |
Maybe they just have a very lazy (or more likely understaffed and overworked)
web admin who took the easy way out and blatently copied the pdf's rather than
going to the more time consuming, (and correct method for a company screaming
bloody murder about copyright, patents, etc) of doing the work themselves. Maybe
they weren't even provided with the documents to scan because the executives
cried all over them, and made them unreadable.
Either way, it's amusing and a compliment to PJ and Marbux. After all, the
sincerest form of flattery is copying. ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: darthaggie on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:25 AM EST |
| They're providing you a service and you talk about stone cold
cash? what a bunch of ingrates! think of all the bandwidth they're
providing!!
wink, wink, nudge, nudge
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:34 AM EST |
Sigh....
Thank you, it's so nice to go to bed with a smile on one's
face, this story certainly put a big one there. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:34 AM EST |
They scream and kick about people ripping them off - but can't be bothered to do
their own document scans? From one point of view it doesn't matter, after all
the documents are public. But from a moral standpoint it stinks.
Still it is what we have come to expect from SCO.
---
Wayne
telnet hatter.twgs.org
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: fuego451 on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:35 AM EST |
Being that SCO and Microsoft are each cut from the same cloth, I'm sure SCO have
no qualm reguarding the use of others work without so much as a 'Thank You'.
Both companies should have the joint motto: Lie, Cheat, Steal and profit. Each
deserves to die a slow and painful death.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Carter on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:50 AM EST |
a) lazy
b) clueless
c) so completely broke that they can't afford Pacer fees
d) totally without morals
e) all of the above
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: scott_R on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:50 AM EST |
Alright, now I'm confused. I mean, SCO has repeatedly implied (or outright
stated, I forget) that PJ and Groklaw (and probably Frank, too) were nothing
more than stooges for IBM.
So, in context of SCO relying on Groklaw, does that mean SCO understands the
position it has put itself in, and has resigned itself to being IBM's, um,
"female canine"? :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 02:26 AM EST |
I wonder what MA's legal status would be if it used a file
format that wasdn't freely available to the public.
Is there a legal obligation for MA to provide government
information in a freely readable form? Remember OpenOffice
can be freely downloaded and will install on all operating
systems whereas no implementation of WordML will at the
moment.
Shouldn't MA wait until WordML implementations are widely
available before even considering a decision on WordML?
Will it be possible for taxpayers to sue MA for recovery
of costs for MS Word and Windows plus installation cost
and time if MA insists on compelling taxpayers to buy MS
Word because of lack of availability of free WordML
implementationd on other wordprocessors or operating
systems for whatever reason?
Since OpenOffice is available, MA cannot argue that a
freely available format that runs on all operating systems
is not available, nor that Microsoft cannot add an
OpenOffice OpenDocument filter to Word for any other
reason than maintaining a monopoly user lock-in on file
formats.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: AllParadox on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 02:30 AM EST |
Man-o-man-o-man.
It just doesn't get any better than this.
After all the nasty insults and suggestions of communist leanings, they do
this.
What they have said is one thing. What this action says, in no uncertain terms,
is that "The SCO Group" officially considers Groklaw to be the most
reliable and dependable source for court information, period. They have
demonstrated that they trust Groklaw more than they trust their own attorneys.
I have to permanently stop the "Official SCO -- dozens of days and
counting" thread now. This is about as official and effective as it gets.
And I have to say this:
To: Mr. McBride, President and CEO, "The SCO Group"
Thank you so much for the unqualified endorsement.
---
PJ edits insults, not ideas.
AllParadox; retired lawyer and chief Groklaw iconoclast. No legal opinions,
just my opinion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: AH1 on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 02:30 AM EST |
If I were you I would be concerned. Given the fact that
SCO believes that all derivative works that have ever
touched Unix belong to them, then it is not a stretch to
believe that the same applies to their court documents.
Somehow it would not shock me to see the SCO make this
claim then threaten a lawsuit. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: davcefai on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 02:50 AM EST |
The SCO website has been unreachable since 0530 GMT. It is now 0750GMT.
Has somebody at SCO said "OOPS!" :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Newsome on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 04:43 AM EST |
So now I should come up with witty sayings to write in the margins of random
documents before I scan them! I've thought of a few already:
- Though
filed by SCO, this document completely destroys their case.
- I have
found a truly elegant solution to the Fermat problem, but unfortunately this
margin is not large enough to contain it.
- Groklaw was here.
- Bring a pillow to court if you plan to sleep.
- Plaintiff sits on
the right (facing the judge), defendant on the left.
---
Frank
Sorenson [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: TAZ6416 on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 04:50 AM EST |
For $5 billion obviously ;)
Jonathan
PS - To the moon!
etc tec.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 05:06 AM EST |
They do not seem to have the document where they miss the deadline for apealing
the AZ decision.
Could someone send them a copy?
Thanks,
Dennis[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 08:27 AM EST |
I think this is good news, and no animosity should be
shown at all.
This is what FOSS/OSS is all about - sharing and making it
better than the alternative.
OK, a credit should have been included, but that doesn't
detract that all the documents made by the people involved
where _made_ for all to see and use.
SCO et al will maybe learn something about how to do it
properly. :)
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: corwyn on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 08:51 AM EST |
For future postings of documents, wouldn't it be just as simple to put something
like "Document converted to PDF by Groklaw" on the pdf? All this would
be for is to provide and easy to see mark to show who did the work of
conversion. I would think this should discourage SCO from using the documents
you've provided and force them to actually do some work themselves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 08:59 AM EST |
I'm not a lawyer or anything and I don't fully understand the ramifications,
BUT...
It's it a little odd a company would make legal documents available to the
public for all the litigation they're involved in? I mean I can see a third
party doing this, but the company itself?
I.E., goto the AT&T website and find information about networking and long
distance and oh yeah, here's all the lawsuits pending with our company.
Am I alone in this thought process?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Rasyr on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 09:17 AM EST |
Perhaps all future document scans should include "Scanned for display on
Groklaw" in the bottom right hand corner of all documents. :)
And I still think that somebody ought to point this story out to Bob Mims (Salt
Lake Tribune), and let him run to town with it. hehe
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 09:48 AM EST |
I hardly think PJ's realy claiming copyright over public records. So there seems
to be no copyright infringement here. You can state that apearently SCO was in a
lazy mood, as usual, and took the documents so the wouldn't need to do anywork.
The fact that PJ releases her articles under a liscence that requieres
atribution is not the issue here either. None of her articles were copied so the
liscence does not apply.
The handwriting might be copyrightable. Is it enough to make a serious claim?
Porbably not but who cares. It's not that this is some kind of revalation. We
all know SCO's handywork. I wasn't surprised when reading about this.
I think some of the comments on this article are somewhat over the top and we
should keep a sane perspecive here. One that's with two feet firmly on the groud
and ignores flaimbait like sco produces in words or actions.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 09:59 AM EST |
Can you ask them to pay you license fees? How about $100 a document? Hey,
after all, they asked us for $699 for their ancient code, so it is fair they pay
for the documents they are getting from Groklaw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: tredman on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:25 AM EST |
Somebody really needs to do a little bit of a mailing here. I would think that
there are a few F/OSS-friendly reporters out there (Bob Mims and Peter Coffee,
are you listening?) that would LOVE to be able add this as a footnote to their
most recent article about SCOXE. We really don't have to mention anything to
the litigants involved since we know they all read Groklaw anyway.
What they did was not illegal. However, it was highly hypocritical. They spend
so much time making public statements about things that really have nothing to
do with the court case, but they'd like to believe it does. It's about time
karma came back at them.
I agree with previous comments on identifying the documents, but only for
documents that were scanned and PDF'd by or for Frank or PJ. There should be
one note in the PDF header, and one note at the bottom or top of each page.
Nothing elaborate, just a nod to the person who did the work and who he/she did
it for. (ie. Scanned for (Groklaw|Tuxrocks). Thanks to ${scanner}). That way,
all paper documents are identified as such, and direct copies of PDF's from
Pacer are untouched, signifying that they're original copies from the court.
Also, the person who actually did the legwork gets credit for their labors for
perpetuity.
For sure, if this had happened in a week from now (4/1), I'd still be leaving
this message, since it's just a good idea to document as much about your
information and sources as possible.
What they did was pure laziness, but it's positively tasty that it's the same
kind of laziness that they've accused F/OSS developers of for so long.
---
Tim
"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Bob Mims - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 04:23 PM EST
- Hear hear (eom) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 07:33 AM EST
- Bob Mims - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 06:19 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: eggplant37 on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 10:36 AM EST |
I note that their collection of documents only goes as far as November 24, 2004,
right around the time that that case went sour for them. Where's the judge's
order denying their motion to stay the case? Where's the final stipulated
dismissal order?
Why is SCO only giving *part* of the SCO v DC story? I'm certain the
stockholders should be informed that they lost that one.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 11:07 AM EST |
| Has anyone dug into the source code of their pages?
Several links that are
hidden away in comments:
They work, but they've been commented out. I especially like
the FAQ section. I'm thinking someone should archive it for posterity.
--
nonpartisan (not logged in)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 11:11 AM EST |
I guess these are PDF's, but are any of them the text versions? Are any pages
left out? What documents are
missing altogether from SCO's Web site?
Still, I suppose this is Yarro's idea of irony (if he
even knows what the word means).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 11:33 AM EST |
Right, public documents are not copy protected. SCO could send one of the
fancy lawyers to do all the coping they want, but they didn't, instead they
downloaded somebody's else work and blatantly placed on its own web site. They
did not copy a copy of the documents but they copy unique electronic files
compiled with great effort and expenses.
They use and make money by
distributing GPL'ed software (for example SAMBA) in the same time they publicly
criticise the GPL licence as unconstitutional. They preach the importance of IP
but in the same time they blatantly using somebody's hard work without proper
attribution. No matter if it is legally permitted or not. It doesn't change this
simple fact that they are using other people's hard work. Immediately, words
like hypocrisy and disgusting comes to my mind.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:04 PM EST |
Wasn't there a case where Westlaw sued someone for selling copies of their
files?
For that matter, isn't this like the sheet music that is sold for Classical
music? The music itself is Public Domain, but the sheet music is not.
Similarly, no one has copyright on the court documents, but the scanned files
can be owned by the one who scanned them.
I'm not advocating legal action, but I believe there is precedent here that this
is, in fact, violating the law.
For the conspiracists among us - perhaps SCO is hoping PJ will try to sue so
they can say "See. These Open Source-types are hypocrites. They want
information to be free unless you are someone they don't like." I wouldn't
give them the ammunition, no matter how wrong they may be.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 12:16 PM EST |
Every day is "April Fools" at SCO!
Yes ***Too funny*** :-)
(wiping away the tears of laughter)
Definition
"SCO":
Laughingstock
butt of all the
jokes
fool
clown
joke
Heh! Heh!
---
"They [each] put in one hour of work,
but because they share the end results
they get nine hours... for free"
Firstmonday 98 interview with Linus Torvalds [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Nick Bridge on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:13 PM EST |
How about using the website without authorization?
As in, people who access the site are given access to the computer(s).
Unauthorized access would include copying the material in order to redirect
viewerrship away from Groklaw.
It's like any unauthorized access.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 01:18 PM EST |
So over on the site http://www.sco.com/scoip/ site and I read this on the logo:
"SCO IP The Right Place for SCO Intellectual Property".
I see a statement. What does it mean? Do they want to put Intellectual Property
on the the Internet?
Ohh yippee, maybe it will be the source to their latest Linux kernel, not the
one from kernel dot org :)
Now look over to the side of the stage and notice that the smoke and mirrors are
already in place.
Ohh well, maybe next time.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 02:10 PM EST |
... for you to introduce changes in these documents hostile to SCO.
You have to wonder if they would they ever know.
Sure sure it would completely undermine your status as an objective fair minded
journalist, but just think of the mischief that single "accidentally"
deleted "not" or "no" or "any" might cause....
Oh the chaos....
</evil thoughts>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 03:07 PM EST |
| Productivity is not a key part of the legal system.
Using a computer to
type up a court document; which gets printed to paper; and then scanned into a
PDF; and then transcribed into text (tip of the hat to the Groklaw team of
volunteers) isn't productive. If the court document was
created in a standard
court document format to begin with
the remaining extra work would not be
needed.
It looks like http://www.legalxml.org
is a start in the
right direction but it doesn't seem to be active. Ideally some royalty and
patent free legal document
standard with relevant sections like document title
and type of document such as: motion, renewed motion, ruling, Certificate
of election, etc. Each type of court document would have it's own relevant
structure elements.
In a more productive world it should be possible to
take an authoritative list (signed documents from court's official website) of
court "documents" and be able to generate a list like the one
at:
http
://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=legal-docs#scovibm
in an
automated manner for all court cases. (With the usual exceptions for
privacy of sealed documents; child custody cases etc.) In fact the official
court website should just have the data on their website. Rather than paying
court clerks to retrieve paper records when people physically visit a court
house the same money could be spent on making the system more efficient for
everyone.
The amount of work that is required to make the court cases that
Groklaw (and tuxrocks) are following up on is not scalable.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 03:56 PM EST |
Since SCO is ripping you off, the least they could do is pay for some bandwidth.
Link you PDF ocuments to the SCO site and then ask everyone to download them
:)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 05:59 PM EST |
Groklaw is hardly a SCO hatesite for pointing out they are a bunch of lying
bozos as proved by their own statements.
http://www.sco.com/scoip/faq.html
What is SCO's stance on Open Source?
SCO has contributed to, participated in, and used Open Source software. SCO
includes many Open Source technologies in its operating system product
offerings. The only issue SCO has with Open Source is when a company's
intellectual property is misappropriated into Open Source technologies against
their will and without respect to the software owner's rights. That is our issue
with Linux.
http://www.thescogroup.com/copyright/
SCO asserts that the GPL, under which Linux is distributed, violates the United
States Constitution and the U.S. copyright and patent laws.
They are lying. Misappropriated intellectual property is not their only concern.
I do not recall Darl putting out a statement that his statement was without
merit.
---
Are you a bagel or a mous?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: reuben on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 06:10 PM EST |
Hi PJ,
I think you are taking this in exactly the right spirit,
as a funny and revealing shortcut by SCO; but some posters
are wondering about suing over their use of your PDFs. It
might be good to put a short note in the article to
explain why you don't intend to sue them over this,
perhaps with a link to the Bridgeman v. Corel decision.
(Somebody has linked to this in another thread). A
lot of your readers would probably find this and any other
relevant background material interesting and useful. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 06:34 PM EST |
Yeah well what about the LKP (Linux Kernel Personality) ?
When the IBM suit is over I think OSSF should look into Unixware 8.
Hey Yarro, two suicides and counting.. Happy Easter.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 06:47 PM EST |
Really, this should be brought to the attention of the judge presiding over the
case. Can you say dismissal?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Why? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 06:03 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 06:50 PM EST |
Well hasn't SCO turned us into a bunch of little crybabies.. Lets get over it;
you wouldn't have complained if they were someone else (an anti-SCO site) so let
us keep some semblance of fairness and objectivity. If your going to preach the
moral high-road of sharing then you should practice such even if its a little
uncomfortable.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: AJWM on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 07:44 PM EST |
| I think the word you're looking for is "smarminess", which is an existing
word.
Sorry, I've got nothing against creating words where needed -- my
father-in-law coined the term "bionics" -- but as a sometime writer I have to
raise at least a token protest against unnecessary neologisms.
(That said, I
kind of like the word "smarmitude".)
-- AJWM [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Smarmitude - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 05:57 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 08:36 PM EST |
Something like this may not be illegal, but it really portrays the poor sense of
judgement and lack of character on SCO's part. Oh, that's right...
When the Linux community takes advantage of the works of others using the
permissions granted by the creator via the GPL, its the work of those
"communist loving open sourcers with their un-American GPL."
When a corporation like SCO takes advantage of the works of others without
permission or attribution, but legally, then its "providing maximum
benefits and revenues for our shareholders. We would not be fulfilling our
fudiciary responsibilities in this capitalistic society if we did not
continually seek to leverage available resources, which includes using every
legal way to leverage the works of others to our benefit."
Its pretty clear that SCO isn't exactly high up on what people would consider
being respectful of intellectual property-- this is just the icing on the
cake.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 26 2005 @ 09:46 PM EST |
Hmm... I think we should put a really light watermark through the EVERY page
throughout the ENTIRE page that says "WWW.GROKLAW.NET" (light as in
color #FEFEFE) and/or a more noticable watermark on the bottom of every page.
Meta tags are also good places to put author information, you know... :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 06:48 AM EST |
"I take comfort from the fact that I'm sure the smart lawyers at IBM (and
others) will make SCO pay dearly for this error.
How I'm not sure....... but I could foresee that IBM might be able to use it to
prove/suggest something along the lines of "plagurism is an entrenched and
coporate policy at SCOXE"; and if they could I don't see that Judge
Kimball, who clearly has low esteem for their case, would be terribley
impressed.
I'm sure other readers will come up with better ideas on this
angle........shame. :-)
==========
It's not me, it's the rest of the world!"
The post shown above seems to have been deleted.
Could anybody point out why?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: cybervegan on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 08:07 AM EST |
I'm gobsmacked, and enraged. I'm sure everyone else is saying the same, but I
don't have time today to browse the comments. I just wanted to add my voice to
the chorus.
DMCA TakeDown notice, anyone.
regards,
cybervegan
---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Waterman on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 08:46 AM EST |
don't you? Because of their great workload in searching for the proverbial
needle in the haystack. They are so overworked in the Discovery stage of the IBM
case that they don't have enough help to do the scanning to post them to their
website. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Because they can - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 09:16 AM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 09:14 AM EST |
Are you serious? Whining about a member of the public disseminating a
scanned public document made available on your site? If your site is not
available for dissemination of information for use by others -- even those
you don't like or disagree with -- then you serve no useful public purpose at
all.
The documents aren't protected or protectable by you, and you shouldn't be
in the business, like Mead and Blizzard, of trying to use contract law (click-
wrap license) to yield a different result. Succeeding in this whining would
lead our community to the worst possible place. It is hypocritical and bad to
suggest that Groklaw can limit the use of unprotectable content or exercise of
unactionable conduct, but Blizzard cannot. Get it? STOP, before you hurt
yourself (and me and the rest of the community) far more than you possibly
might harm SCO.
We shouldn't be in the business of censoring use of public information and
facts. Dumb move. Bad.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Saturn on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 03:48 PM EST |
/me checks calendar
Oh, no it isn't. :o)
---
----------------------------------------
My own opinion, and very humble one too.
Which is probably why I'm not a lawyer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 05:50 PM EST |
The funny thing is that by exploiting groklow's volunteerism they acknowledged
that Groklaw and Tuxrocks are the ultimate source of information about their
little IP scam.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 27 2005 @ 08:43 PM EST |
| Wouldn't it have been easier for SCO to link to Groklaw or sco.tuxrocks.com? :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 12:31 AM EST |
So, SCO pilfers PDFs from Groklaw and Tuxrocks.
Ironically funny as
that is in and of itself, I frankly don't see the need to scream for blood.
Groklaw is based on information sharing and dissemination for the stated
purpose of countering untrue or false statements made by SCO in connection with
their legal threat to Linux as a joint and volunteer development
effort.
SCO's sin consists not in taking the files but in not giving due
credit. That, and only that, should be pointed out to them as politely and
reasonable as possible.
Everything else is counter to the spirit of Free
and Open. A dignified reply is what is needed; not small-minded cries for
revenge...
Tordenskjold --not logged in
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: zjimward on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 08:33 AM EST |
Just imagine if they would take documents from the internet then they would take
code for SCO Unix and claim they wrote it. Not that they would ever do such a
thing, but if evidience like this was presented before a jury it could cause
"shadow of a doubt".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: ahinds on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 11:05 AM EST |
From the SCOIP site, click on their 'Legal' item:
Copyright
© Copyright 1998-2004, The SCO Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved. SCO documents
available from the World Wide Web ("SCO Documents") are protected by
the copyright laws of the United States and International Treaties.
Permission to copy, view and print SCO documents available from the World Wide
Web is authorized provided that:
it is used for non-commercial and informational purposes;
it is not modified; and
the above copyright notice and this permission notice is contained in each SCO
Document.
Notwithstanding the above, nothing contained herein shall be construed as
conferring any right or license under any copyright of SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 11:19 AM EST |
I e-mailed this to the scoip site
-----Original Message-----
From: mikelist(at)tds.net [mailto:mikelist(at)tds.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2005 5:15 AM
To: webmaster@caldera.com
Subject: respect for Intellectual property...
This email is from the company feedback form.
-------------------------------------------------
COUNTRY: United States
CONCERNING: Website Queries
MESSAGE:
On Groklaw it is alleged that you guys are once again taking others' work
and passing it off as your own. You really SHOULD (for consistency's sake)
attribute those who turned the court documents into PDFs, as well as where
you got them.
Apparently, only SCOX IP is of legal importance, and you really don't have
a problem with passing other people's work off as your own. Common courtesy
suggests that you shouldn't be prating about inappropriate IP usage,
without attributing the work done to make the legal docs readable.
I hope you will find the moral strength to come clean on this issue at
least.
Here is the response I got.
Draw yer own conclusions.
--
Thank you for your interest in SCO. In spite of the inuendos and rumors to
the contrary, SCO has not misappropriated any content from Groklaw. The
legal filings and documents on Groklaw are also available on other sites
less known to the open source community.
Intellectual property is a very serious concern for us at SCO.
Thank you for your concern,
Dean Zimmerman
Senior Manager, Online Marketing
The SCO Group
Thank you Dean[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 03:48 PM EST |
You can do more than just assume, based on the check sum, that the documents
were copied without attribution. It is my understanding that all scanners imbed
in the images a code that is the serial number of the scanner.
I wonder if you might want to issue a DMCA takedown order if you can validate
it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 03:56 PM EST |
Looks like Frank is identifying with specifity files SCOXE copied from
Groklaw!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Infringing code indeed. When they have millions of lines of code to work from
and can't even come up with anything even remotely supportable in their
contention. It is very lucky indeed that Groklaw is not feeling litiguous.
(sp?)
Whatever, polite words seem inadequate to express my feelings, however I refrain
from using vulgar and profane words because I wouldn't want to degrade them by
association.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 05:23 PM EST |
Dear Pamela and Frank Sorenson,
I hate to sound like a troll. Reading Pamela Jones Creative commons
license, it specifically says that attribution must be provided giving the
original author credit. My first impulse was to encourage SCO to abide by the
terms of the license. However Frank indicated the documents were published on
his web site.
I found the following copyright notice on his web site, which I re-post for
reference purposes here:
"TuxRocks.com © Copyright 2004, 2005 Frank Sorenson.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
owners.
Legal documents here are matters of public record.
Contact me via email at frank AT tuxrocks DOT com."
I apologize, but it appears that Frank is saying that the Legal documents are
a matter of public record. As such, ia assume they are free of incomberance.
Please correct me if I mis-understand. At the risk of sounding critical, a word
of clarification would be helpful if I am in error, as I assume that if I
mis-understand others would as well.
Regardless, though the letters sent SCO might have been phrased more
diplomatically, SCO is aware that the source of at least one document was one
Frank scanned in. As a matter of courtesy they should acknowledge his work.
Also, I wish Frank and Pamela to know I sincerly appreciate all their hard
work.
Respectfully,
A grateful Groklaw Reader.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 28 2005 @ 10:21 PM EST |
That aint nuthin but low life...
Darl,
Get a real job and do some good for somebody besides yourself for a
change...!!!!! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 29 2005 @ 01:58 PM EST |
Show pity on SCO,They don't have enough money left to buy a legal copy of
Acrobat or they aren't smart enough to know how to use it.:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
