Congress key factor for Linux

[sujan]

One way or another, rights to the core coding behind the Linux operating system (OS) ultimately will be decided by several federal court lawsuits stemming from SCO Group's claims on the popular "open source," or freely distributed software.
But the longer term battle for Linux, an offshoot of the Unix OS that Lindon-based SCO claims to own outright, could be decided by Congress, if authors of the fledgling Open Source and Industry Alliance have their way.
Unveiled this week at San Francisco's LinuxWorld conference, the group primarily will serve as a lobbying group to urge lawmakers to adopt Linux for use in government computer systems.
Novell spokesman Matt Asey confirmed Friday that his Provo-based company is a member of the alliance.
"We were the first, or at least one of the first to commit to the group," Asey said. "The OSIA is looking to us to help pull in some of the laggards, like IBM and Hewlett Packard."

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08092003/business/82585.asp

[jiacinto]

1. Please translate to English

for people who aren't techies.

[sujan]

2. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=SCO+IBM+lawsuit

[sujan]

4. here's why the lawsuit by SCO wont work

http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:Wlym_0mZSHYJ:www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html+open+source+linux+vs+sco&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[kcr]

3. There are two issues

1)A compnay called SCO claims that code it holds the rights to ended up in the laterst Linux distributions. SCO is suing for royaltie. From what I have seen, they should lose, but intellecutal property laws in this country are pretty screwed up, so I really do not know what will happen.

2)For about two yeas now, Microsoft has been on a kick to get the government to use proprierty as opposed to open source (in a nutshell, properietary means the users cannot look at or modify the code, open source means you cna look at and modify the code. Usually, open source liscences require ytou to give back your changes freely, but not all do. That is the subject of holy wars in the open source community) for government work, claiming that open source code is "un-American" and less secure. Now, large companies like IBM who have invested a lot of money into systems and marketing plans that rely on open source software have formed their own lobbying group to counter Microoft's.

What is really interesting to me is the potential this has on all intellecutal property laws in the country. IP proponents claim that only by having the most draconian and restricive IP laws can compnaies be expected to "innovate", becasue only then can they be guaranteed a return on their investment. Drug compnaies love this argument. However, open source ocde has been extremly successful in a very short amount of time. The software that runs this place was written with an open source language. I haven't chacked, but its almost certain that the web server that its runs on is an open source web server. The internet does not exist without open source code. IBM has made a lot of money wih open source software. Now that there is a lobby group tout9ng the benefits of a business model that does not depend upon restrictive IP laws, it will be interesting to see if anyone in COngress starts to look at the whole IP situation differently. Perhaps the claims of Holywood and drug compnaies will be looked at alittle more carefully.

[Abaques]

5. The Democrats *need* to take this issue.

There are alot of techie people out there who generally lean toward being liberatarian. Although they are very delusional regarding economics and many of them take a social darwinism approach to social programs, the key issue for many of them are ip laws and related subjects.

If the Democrats can take a stand in support of open-sourced software, reform of ip and copyright laws, and a reigning in of the RIAA and MPAA, then quite a few voters (and some who will be very active) will make the switch when it comes time to vote.

There are a few Dems in congress who are the lapdogs of the MPAA, RIAA and other Big Media. We need to make them change their positions or cast them loose.


And its not just politics, reforming ip and copyright laws is just the right thing to do.

[yowzayowzayowza]

8. This also goes thru to...

the voting software issue. Dz really should jump on this one. Kinda ties several issues together for both the techies and general public.

[Born_a_Democrat]

6. In English...

There is a company suing IBM (proponents of Linux O/S) because that company (SCO) says that the Linux O/S core is based on copyrighted code

example: Imagine if now GM sued Ford because GM says that using a certain type of 6 cylinder engine in a car started out being THEIR idea and is copyrighted (as if they couldn't come up with it on their own)

This is oversimplified of course but it gives you the point.

Following with this example:
The problem with the argument is that the company suing will not say EXACTLY what about the engine is copyrighted...like "the Ford engine is a 60 degree six cylinder in a V configuration and we invented that"


The reason they won't say: Because they know that if they say EXACTLY what about the engine they "invented" then FORD will just choose another type of 6 cyclinder engine and there are many:
45 degree V6, Inline 6, Flat 6 and so on....if this happens they will not have a case....




Back to the Linux topic

SCO will not say EXACTLY what source code is "being violated that is copyrighted by them" because they know as soon as they say what it is...Linux O/S developers around the globe will just replace the "copyrighted" code with something else and SCO will have no suit.


Now Wait!...if this can be done...where all of a sudden your supposed "intellectual property" is NO LONGER being "stolen" then WHY ON EARTH would you not just come out and show what is being "violated" so they can stop doing it?

two reasons:

1. Microsoft paid SCO 10 million in supposed "licencing" fees just weeks before this suit went forward (which means that Microsoft basically paid SCO to file the suit because Linux is the only main competitor of Windows that could in the next few years WIPE OUT the advantage that Windows has in the market".


2. Because SCO thinks that if the suit is actually won...(which will be nearly impossible unless they have A LOT of people in their pockets) then they will start collecting royalties for the time that their supposed "copyrighted code" was used (even if Linux developers change it immediately).


The way SCO thinks of it...they have nothing to lose...Microsoft gave them 10 mil to spend on legal expenses and if they lose, well, then they're exactly where they were before the suit, nothing lost, nothing gained....BUT

If they win...then not only did they NOT pay for the battle but they get the spoils of victory. So you see...it's about Greed on both sides, Microsoft AND SCO...

I hope that clears it up...

Mike

[JustAmused]

7. As a new Linux user...

I have finally got Linux running fine on my and online. I am amazed at how much faster things are. I have some Windoze apps I still have run under 98, mainly some video chat programs, but everything else Linux does ....*grin*. The real question of course is ....how much Linux code is in MS new versions, not how much Unix is in Linux. I believe MS is sponsoring this suit to cover their butts because they have incorporated lots of Linux in their new offerings.

[starroute]

9. One more important point

SCO is trying to get Linux users to pay them license fees to avoid being sued for infringing their supposed copyright.

This is roughly equivalent to an author claiming that a book by another author was plagiarized from his own, threatening that anyone who reads (!) the other author's book is violating his copyright, and then offering to sell people "licenses" so they can read the other author's book legally.

In other words, it's extortion, pure and simple.