Slashdot Mirror

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200312051 43009441

IANAL, but Lawrence Lessig is. Here is the clearest easiest to understand explanation of the GPL and how it relates to US and EU copyright law (and SCO, and FUD, and the U.S. Constitution) that I have EVER read!

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that anyone with any interest or questions in what is going on with the SCO case, Linux, or the GPL read this article; it is that good

Credit where credit is due - first seen referenced on Slashdot (somewhere) and link found on Groklaw (somewhere)

by receiving all versions and iterations of AIX and Dynix, SCO will have evidence of IBM's development of Linux in violation of its contractual and legal obligations.

In other words, SCO believes it owns AIX and Dynix, and that IBM used SCO's AIX and Dynix code to improve Linux.

On the other hand, SCO is or has been distributing software that was released under the GPL and BSD licences. They have voided their right to do so. They have allowed software released under BSD and almost certainly GPL licenses to be inserted into their Unix variant.

Under the DMCA and CA76, the FSF and UC can demand that they stop distribution of any Unix-like operating system until all GPL/BSD code is removed.

Suing SCO for violation of the Copyright Act might not be successful in court, but it could be. Even if the suit were to fail (or more likely, SCO go under before a trial), the publicity of such a suit would make it obvious that Open Source adherents are not anti-copyright. We just prefer a different EULA.

What's really wrong with SCO's position? I agree with Lessig:

In SCO's open letter [slashdot.org], they say:

... "copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge.... The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science."...

Their argument is that the profit motive is what is important about copyrights. According to SCO, the intent of the author and his right to control the distribution of his work are a secondary side effect of the profit motive and our economy's need for him to profit from his work.

That twisted paradigm underpins SCO's business plan, their market strategy, and their case against IBM.

I believe it's time to sue SCO, in order to make clear that it's the author's right to control his work and who profits from it that matters, and not just his right to profit.

But, your're not... it is really here

I'd like to point out that the work that Pamela Jones & Co. at GROKLAW is clearly of some real use to IBM in this case. another poster has already mentioned that IBM has specifically cited a transcription GROKLAW produced in their recent filing.

I would also like to remind others that there's a little paypal donation button on the front page of GROKLAW, as mauryisland pointed out elsewhere.

click that button. give her a holiday bonus, just enough to make it hurt you a tiny little bit. and let's see just how robust PayPal's servers are.

Hopefully the judge will take one look at this this and ask SCO exactly why they arn't prepared to say what they have on IBM.

The US Constitution permits Congress to use Copyright to "promote the progress of science and useful arts". It does not specify how that promotion should take place.

The Eldred case does not really apply here, as Eldred was contesting the authority of Congress to extend copyright, sadly rejected. Even so, profit can be defined in many ways, and Open Source developers do profit from the work that they put into their software. The normal method of profit is that they are able to consult or offer support contracts on the basis of their proven skill in software development. The more widely used the software, the more in demand their services. In addition, authors gain by improved status and recognition both inside and outside the community.

In recent letters published on Groklaw, it has been established that employees and officers of SCO were aware that their developers were actively assisting and contributing to all the projects now under dispute, including the parts under dispute with IBM. Given this tacit approval, one cannot now change your mind and withdraw those efforts.

Again in your letter, you have made the mistake of claiming it is your intellectual property that is being distributed. The weight of evidence now shows that any intellectual property owned by you has been released to the public domain with your knowledge, or was never your property in the first place. You have little grounds for claiming that any intellectual property truly owned by you is in Linux or any other Open Source software. All claims you have made so far have been proven to be untrue.

As I understand it, the offer still stands; release all files which you claim is your intellectual property, and if proven, it would be withdrawn from Linux. We fail to see what problems you have with releasing those files, since after all, you are claiming that they are already in Linux; thus any confidentiality has already been lost.

check this out (from groklaw):

[...]

But here is the odd part: SCO's lawyers didn't write this manifesto and neither did Darl, judging by the headers on the Word file. Yes, thanks to Microsoft's utter disregard for user privacy, we know who actually wrote this document, or at least whose computer was used. You see, Microsoft preserves such info as metadata, little pieces of info about you in the headers of each document you write in Word. Someone on Yahoo took a look at the document's Properties, and the document records that it was written by Kevin McBride and Dean Zimmerman, who is apparently a tech writer.

[...]

Larry Lessig, Eldred counsel and all-around bad-ass, put aside his obligations for the morning on his visit to Japan to pen this response (typos retained for the grammar nerds):

More SCO fud, this time insulting the constitution

I apologize for the silence, but weve been in Japan this week announcing iCommons in Japan. (More on that soon). But after reading this extraordinary document by Darl McBride of SCO infamy, I could resist canceling this morning meetings to respond.

From the start of this pathetic lawsuit, Eben Moglen of the Free Software Foundation has argued that there was nothing behind the SCO claims. His arguments are persuasive. But if you want a clue of just how clueless this case is, consider the constitutional arguments made by SCO.

McBride's argument is grounded in the Constitution. (Well, close to the constitution. He quotes the text of the constitution to be:

Congress shall have Power [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, open-source advocates argue against copyright and patent laws, and whatever measures they take to by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Actually, the framers didn't say anything about "open source advocates.")

As he rightly is argues, the Constitution requires that Congress only grant copyrights where those copyrights "promote the Progress of Science." Thus, if Congress granted copyrights in a context where they didn't "promote progress" one might well ask whether such a law was constitutional (e.g., a law that extended the terms of existing copyrights, but let's leave that aside for the moment).

But the key move in the McBride-FUD is his claim that proponents of free software and open source software are somehow against copyright.

He claims that "GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the 'copyright' laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union"; that "Red Hat has aggressively lobbied Congress to eliminate software patents and copyrights"; that "the issue is clear: do you support copyrights and ownership of intellectual property as envisioned by our elected officials in Congress and the European Union, or do you support "free" - as in free from ownership - intellectual property envisioned by the Free Software Foundation, Red Hat and others?"; that "SCO argues that the authority of Congress under the U.S. Constitution to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful arts" inherently includes a profit motive, and that protection for this profit motive includes a Constitutional dimension"; and that "We believe that the "progress of science" is best advanced by vigorously protecting the right of authors and inventors to earn a profit from their work."

Let's take each of these claims in turn:

"GPL is exactly opposite in its effect from the 'copyright' laws adopted by the US Congress and the European Union"

Despite RMS's aversion to the term, the GPL trades on a property right that the laws of the US and EU grant "authors" for their creative work. A property right means that the owner of the right has the right to do with his property whatever he wishes, consistent with the laws of the land. If he chooses to give his property away, that does not make it any less a property right. If he chooses to sell it for $1,000,000, that doesn't make it any less a property right. And if he chooses to license it on the condition that source code be made free, that doesn't make it

They've already entered several counterclaims. No sense having two trials when one will suffice, right? IBM has claimed Breach of Contract, Lanham Act Violation, Unfair Competition, Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices, Breach of GNU General Public License, Promissory Estoppel (in regards to the GPL) Copyright Infringement, four counts of Patent Infringement, and is seeking a Declaratory Judgment. Should be enough to bury SCO, eh?

As I understand from reading Groklaw (hi PJ), tomorrow is sort of a status hearing. Both sides have filed requests asking the court to compel the other party to do something. SCO is basically asking the court to tell IBM to hand over every file in their possession relating to Unix, Linux, AIX or any other operating system that ends in "X" so they can plow though them to see what they can accuse IBM of doing wrong. IBM, on the other hand, is asking the court, "SCO has been claiming for months that they have evidence that we trespassed on something or other of theirs. Please tell them it's time to put up or shut up. Make them show what evidence they have or admit they have no case."

That is a gross oversimplification but it's basically what it boils down to. Based on the results of tomorrow's hearing, the parties will probably be required to return to court in a month or two to see if they've followed the court's orders.

So you're just a bit off on your understanding of discovery. Tomorrow's hearing is not the end of the discovery process; basically, it's a chance for the two sides and the magistrate judge to assess how much progress has been made in discovery so far and what still needs to be done.

Right here...

Also there is some other SCO news on the front page.

Personally I can't get past how SCO reckons they can make the GPL invalid and then face all the angry kernel developers suing them for illegally distributing their copyrighted works....

where is that 'donate via paypal' button on your site?

Front Page, left side, vertically between the links and the login form.

"Insofar as this interrogatory seeks information as to whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code in question or otherwise made it available to the public, SCO has never authorized, approved or knowingly released any part of the subject code that contains or may contain its confidential and proprietary information and/or trade secrets for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution."

Cross your heart and hope to die, SCO? Or cross your fingers behind your back? Let's see what the evidence shows.

SCO has specifically mentioned the following four as being code at issue in this case: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP, and while it is conceivable that the "subject code" they are talking about in this response to IBM's interrogatory is referring to some other code, it seems reasonable to look at the code they have mentioned publicly. Actually, it's more than reasonable. It's our only choice, until they tell us exactly what code they are complaining about with specificity. Is it true that they never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" any of this code for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution?

Let's start with JFS. In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS, as Groklaw reported on July 18. Here is a snip from that article:

"Here is an email in which he tells an inquirer how to contribute to JFS, including this tidbit: 'I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it. . . . The JFS/Linux core team has setup a CVS commitinfo, but currently I'm the only one who receives it.'

"And here he encourages someone to donate to the main JFS repository at IBM and talks about his role:

"'I'm one of the main commiters to JFS outside IBM and I'm really happy to see more people involved :)

"'First I'd like to encourage you to contribute your userspace changes to the main JFS repository at IBM. For the 1.0.11 release I have added autoconf/automake support to easify portability and a bunch of portablity patches (mostly getting rid of linuxisms) is under way to the Core team.'

"He also posts to the freebsd list as freebsd-fs at freebsd.org.

"Here is the press release when SCO in 2002 released 'SCO Linux Server 4.0 for the Itanium (R) Processor Family' and which mentions that the product is based on United Linux. This SCO page lists JFS as one of its features. . . .

"They are complaining that IBM contributed JFS to Linux, but their own employee, from this evidence, was involved in helping out. On the day IBM announced JFS was being given to Linux, Hellwig is listed as making five contributions to the kernel."

And he is listed on this page of JFS contributors. Here is IBM's page on Who Is Using JFS? and it lists United Linux. So they not only released a distro with JFS in it under the GPL, their employee helped make it h

"Insofar as this interrogatory seeks information as to whether plaintiff has ever distributed the code in question or otherwise made it available to the public, SCO has never authorized, approved or knowingly released any part of the subject code that contains or may contain its confidential and proprietary information and/or trade secrets for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution."

Cross your heart and hope to die, SCO? Or cross your fingers behind your back? Let's see what the evidence shows.

SCO has specifically mentioned the following four as being code at issue in this case: JFS, NUMA, RCU, and SMP, and while it is conceivable that the "subject code" they are talking about in this response to IBM's interrogatory is referring to some other code, it seems reasonable to look at the code they have mentioned publicly. Actually, it's more than reasonable. It's our only choice, until they tell us exactly what code they are complaining about with specificity. Is it true that they never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" any of this code for inclusion in any Linux kernel or as part of any Linux distribution?

Let's start with JFS. In the case of JFS, they not only distributed Linux with JFS, one of Caldera's employees, Christoph Hellwig, contributed code to JFS, as Groklaw reported on July 18. Here is a snip from that article:

"Here is an email in which he tells an inquirer how to contribute to JFS, including this tidbit: 'I've run native sysvfs tools under linux, but as now that I'm Linux sysvfs maintainer I'm looking into implementing free versions of it. . . . The JFS/Linux core team has setup a CVS commitinfo, but currently I'm the only one who receives it.'

"And here he encourages someone to donate to the main JFS repository at IBM and talks about his role:

"'I'm one of the main commiters to JFS outside IBM and I'm really happy to see more people involved :)

"'First I'd like to encourage you to contribute your userspace changes to the main JFS repository at IBM. For the 1.0.11 release I have added autoconf/automake support to easify portability and a bunch of portablity patches (mostly getting rid of linuxisms) is under way to the Core team.'

"He also posts to the freebsd list as freebsd-fs at freebsd.org.

"Here is the press release when SCO in 2002 released 'SCO Linux Server 4.0 for the Itanium (R) Processor Family' and which mentions that the product is based on United Linux. This SCO page lists JFS as one of its features. . . .

"They are complaining that IBM contributed JFS to Linux, but their own employee, from this evidence, was involved in helping out. On the day IBM announced JFS was being given to Linux, Hellwig is listed as making five contributions to the kernel."

And he is listed on this page of JFS contributors. Here is IBM's page on Who Is Using JFS? and it lists United Linux. So they not only released a distro with JFS in it under the GPL, their employee helped make it h

Yep. Asked about the 'silent majority' that, according the the paranoid delusions of Mc-soon-to-be-Prison-Bride WindRiver is with SCO with concern to the GPL:

"[...] Anybody who owns an operating system that thinks it shouldn't be for free, uh, would naturally fall on this side of the table that SCO is on. So it is not just Microsoft, it is Wind River Systems, it's Sun Microsystems, essentially anybody who thinks that their valuable intellectual property in an operating system should have a price tag on it naturally lines up with SCO on this."

SCO Teleconference, transcript here.

That's a good point. However, I was thinking the opposite: Frank Sorenson's analysis seems to show that SCO believes that SMP, JFS, RCU, and NUMA belong to them. One would imagine that by it's very nature, Google might possibly be making extensive use of SMP, RCU and NUMA, at least.

That reminds be of The Grinch who stole Linux:

It's hilarious

So now we have SCO threatening to sue Novell if they go through with their acquisition of SuSE. I suspect it's predicated on a favorable judgment against IBM that establishes Linux to infringe on SysV... thus, Linux is a derivative... thus, Novell is using a SysV derivative (and an unauthorized one at that) to compete against SCO's core business.

In the end, it's just more of the same. It's SCO trying to convince the world they have an airtight case, so you'd better get on board voluntarily now before a judge forces you to later (when it will cost more). Fortunately, most of the Linux-using world has been smarter than that up to this point.

"Will there be Windows-specific APIs in the BIOS? Are they available to other operating systems? Are these APIs cryptographically hidden from reverse engineering? Legally, do these APIs belong to Microsoft or to Phoenix? Is this a loophole with respects to the anti-trust settlement? This raises a lot of questions about the ability of hardware that includes this new Phoenix BIOS to run non-Microsoft operating systems. Would they run? Would they be crippled it they run? Would Microsoft customers switching to Linux have to change hardware as well, if their PCs run this BIOS? "

Tread very carefully.

Sure..
Right here for the IBM case and here's the RedHat one.

The case isn't going into oral arguments, rather there will be a presentation of oral arguments on IBM:s two motions to compel discovery and SCO:s single motion to compel. This will lead to a ruling on the motions, nothing else.

What we can hope for here is that IBM's motions to compel will be upheld, and SCO will be ordered to provide details on exactly -what- they claim was illegaly put into Linux, within a set time frame.

But the case isn't over by a long shot.

Sure..
Right here for the IBM case and here's the RedHat one.

The case isn't going into oral arguments, rather there will be a presentation of oral arguments on IBM:s two motions to compel discovery and SCO:s single motion to compel. This will lead to a ruling on the motions, nothing else.

What we can hope for here is that IBM's motions to compel will be upheld, and SCO will be ordered to provide details on exactly -what- they claim was illegaly put into Linux, within a set time frame.

But the case isn't over by a long shot.

Groklaw is your friend

This is also being discussed over at Groklaw, which any of you who still are reading Caldera stories should know about by now...

I'm sincerely hoping that IBM is subpoening Canopus in order to pierce the corporate veil.

Wish granted.

Here is a copy of the subpoena:

Excellent article by Frank Sorenson on Groklaw:
The SCO Group's List of "Infringing" Files -- How Might They Have Come Up With This List?

Excellent article by Frank Sorenson on Groklaw:
The SCO Group's List of "Infringing" Files -- How Might They Have Come Up With This List?

On a tactical level the GPL screws up any lasting benefit from a settlement with IBM because SCO released the code containing the same supposedly valuable IP under the GPL. So even if SCO really does own the IP they are claiming, they published it under the GPL and so its available for all under the GPL. They may be able to collect some $$$ from IBM but the cat is out of the bag and they haven't stopped Linux. On a strategic level, SCO ideally wants to be the only entity who can charge a licensing fee for Linux and *BSD. You donate your Linux code under a GPL that allows SCO and only SCO to collect a licensing fee. There are some obvious, lasting benefits to SCO if this happens.

On a tactical level the GPL screws up any lasting benefit from a settlement with IBM because SCO released the code containing the same supposedly valuable IP under the GPL. So even if SCO really does own the IP they are claiming, they published it under the GPL and so its available for all under the GPL. They may be able to collect some $$$ from IBM but the cat is out of the bag and they haven't stopped Linux. On a strategic level, SCO ideally wants to be the only entity who can charge a licensing fee for Linux and *BSD. You donate your Linux code under a GPL that allows SCO and only SCO to collect a licensing fee. There are some obvious, lasting benefits to SCO if this happens.

Take that, you Microserf shills!

It's my opinion that Darl et al will argue that: because the GPL requires a licensee of GPL code to give up the rights they have under copyright law to their additions/derivatives (instead of giving up money) then it is not an allowable license.

It's total bollocks when you think about it - after all, any copyright owner gives up rights they have under copyright law when they accept money from a publisher! However, that's my tuppence (like 2 cents, but English).

Justin.

[When I came aboard at SCO I looked at this issue of code and asked:] 'Why don't you guys do this?' They said, 'Because the Linux community will get mad at us.'

I tell you what, I'll give you the Linux community getting mad at us vs. shareholder value. That was the trade off. They were absolutely right, the Linux community got mad and we were right, shareholder value went up. The last time I checked the CEO was in charge of shareholder value, not standing around the campfire singing Kumbaya with the Linux world. So far, I'm pleased with where we're going..

This shows a complete lack of any moral value whatsoever. Completely gone. Guess what - if that many people get mad, you're not doing the right thing! It doesn't matter how much money you can make, you still shouldn't do it. (To put it another way, "Last I checked, it wasn't my job to sit around the table carving the roast beef for the Whos down in Whoville.")

And my favorite, hopefully prophetic, quote which McBride attributes to IBM's lawyers:

The skies over Utah will be blackened with attorneys before this is all done.

"Obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim." [August 28, 2002]

"This case is not about the debate about the relative merits of the proprietary versus open-source software models. This case is also not about IBM's right to develop and promote open-source software, so long as they do that without SCO's proprietary information." [March 7 2003]

"There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." [April 24 2003] (for fun, contrast to motion to dismiss court filings in Red Hat v. SCO Group, particularily where it claims there is no "actual controversy", and Red Hat has no reason to fear a lawsuit from SCO... Well, at least not until they finish with IBM)

Yeah, I'm sure Darl has a much better understanding of the issues. Lets look at another perspective instead, shall we? When Darl took over, SCO was sinking fast. They needed income, and they needed it soon. Linux was never a moneymaker for SCO/Caldera, but they did have some of these old contracts over SVR4 source code with some pretty big names. As Darl so eloquently put it, "Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with." Maybe, just maybe they could rattle some sabres and see what money floats their way to shut them up.

Where does this 20% come from?

Here.

You may want to start reading Groklaw if your really worried about this.. I'm getting less worried the more I read.. IBM is being VERY carefull and methodical about all of this while SCO is too busy undermining their own case by making a lot of public noise.

IBM has always been very dangeorous to mess with and while SCO may gain some stock value in the short term anyone who bets on them surviving in the long term is going to lose.

To put it another way, they are not filtering FreeBSD results because it's not a popular subject and because FreeBSD is not a threat to their plans in the server market. Or, if it is, they're too shortsighted to see that (as they were with Linux). Something tells me there is another anti-GPL speech in you wanting to get out. (Well, not another one, just the same one you've been using for years.)

But seriously, there was something on Groklaw about this, where MSN puts paid links first, and they also posted an examination of the possible methdos they use to sort stuff according to their interests and the subject's overall popularity as measured by MSN. The raw search results are there, but you have to do some fiddling to see them. The article I am thinking of is here

I am afraid that if you have a product that is not for sale that replaces a product that is for sale, you are in competition.

You may be right in general -- but in this case, I believe that you're misinformed. The wording in the Novell/SCO agreement is very specific. It did not specify that Novell could not compete with SCO in the x86 market. They already do -- if Novell agreed to do so, they'd put themselves out of business.

Read the text of the agreement at Groklaw.net. Essentially, the agreement stated that they could not use SysV Unix (the IP that Novell sold to SCO) to compete with SCO. Darl's argument is based on his contention that Linux contains enough stolen code from SysV Unix to warrant it being called Unix. Essentially, his non-compete claim is completely based on the outcome of the SCO Vs. IBM case (which, IMO is all bullshit). If SCO loses the IBM case, then they won't have a leg to stand on against Novell since the courts will have affirmed that Linux!=UNIX.

--Turkey

I want SCO news 24/7, day, nite, morning and evening.

From Groklaw...The firm will be enforcing and defending SCO's intellectual property rights, including the protection of our UNIX System V source code and our copyrights that were reaffirmed as a result of the BSDI settlement agreement.'" Does SCO now think that they also own BSDi rights?

Authored by: radicimo on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:40 PM EST

Conference call just ended. I had a *1 for questions, but they just cut off the conference before things got too hairy, with a "We have no more callers". LIARS. Also, interesting how Dion Cornett was unable to ask his question. Makes me wonder out loud.

1. They referred to SCOsource licensing as one of the contingencies that created the payment for Boies (really cagey about it too). However they also said that Microsoft in no way was funding the lawsuit. That is a patently untrue then, as MSFT has funded the SCOsource licensing.

I think this one is really important to note. IF there ever is a securities fraud investigation of TSG, some of their comments in the call are patently self-contradictory, and if I was "allowed" to ask my questions these would have come out.

2. Still seems that there are no other licensees besides MSFT and SUNW. I was going to force them to get specific about this and find out when Sun payment will be recorded, and if there were any future contingencies which would lead to additional payments by either.

3. I wanted Boies to explain how the USL v. BSDI lawsuit gave them any legal standing. It doesn't, and seems to weaken it (IANAL).

4. Compete versus non-compete wrt Novell. First UNIX is not Linux, so how are they competing with the letter of the agreement? Second, SCO legacy revenue is decreasing whereas this new partnership (word they used again and again) with a law firm suggests that their core business is now lawsuits. How is Novell competing with that (tongue in cheek)?

5. Has OSDL contacted them about their use of the trademark UNIX, and why do they continue to use this trademark without proper attribution?

The reason why SCO is able to perpetrate the FUD they do is because the press and financial community are not doing their research and asking the hardball questions. Things only got a bit tight when they got called to task on the issue of Boies payment and whether it was a contingency based on past or future actions."

Authored by: radicimo on Tuesday, November 18 2003 @ 12:40 PM EST

Conference call just ended. I had a *1 for questions, but they just cut off the conference before things got too hairy, with a "We have no more callers". LIARS. Also, interesting how Dion Cornett was unable to ask his question. Makes me wonder out loud.

1. They referred to SCOsource licensing as one of the contingencies that created the payment for Boies (really cagey about it too). However they also said that Microsoft in no way was funding the lawsuit. That is a patently untrue then, as MSFT has funded the SCOsource licensing.

I think this one is really important to note. IF there ever is a securities fraud investigation of TSG, some of their comments in the call are patently self-contradictory, and if I was "allowed" to ask my questions these would have come out.

2. Still seems that there are no other licensees besides MSFT and SUNW. I was going to force them to get specific about this and find out when Sun payment will be recorded, and if there were any future contingencies which would lead to additional payments by either.

3. I wanted Boies to explain how the USL v. BSDI lawsuit gave them any legal standing. It doesn't, and seems to weaken it (IANAL).

4. Compete versus non-compete wrt Novell. First UNIX is not Linux, so how are they competing with the letter of the agreement? Second, SCO legacy revenue is decreasing whereas this new partnership (word they used again and again) with a law firm suggests that their core business is now lawsuits. How is Novell competing with that (tongue in cheek)?

5. Has OSDL contacted them about their use of the trademark UNIX, and why do they continue to use this trademark without proper attribution?

The reason why SCO is able to perpetrate the FUD they do is because the press and financial community are not doing their research and asking the hardball questions. Things only got a bit tight when they got called to task on the issue of Boies payment and whether it was a contingency based on past or future actions."

After more investigation, it turns out that this is indeed very deliberate. Check out this.

I think you're on to part of their game, yes. They whore out their first page, as you put it, and this makes their site a lot less useful to folk, who turn to google. Typical MicroSoft response, of course, is to buy google and do the same thing with it.

There was a discussion of this same story awhile back on Groklaw and there are some interesting observations made there. There is a huge difference in hits between the MSN main search and the MSN UK search, I wonder if the UK site is just not 'whoring' the same way?

OK. No whinning about too much SCO news and no whinning about too little SCO news. /.ers will just have to whine about the RIAA, MPAA, etc. until we find something else for you to whine about.

IBM shits on Darl's birthday cake.

Then again, Groklaw has this nice quote:

You know, it isn't exactly normal to announce who you are going to subpoena. For one thing, the party might go on a 2-year world cruise on a raft or something, and then you might find them hard to timely serve. Not that I'm trying to give Linus any suggestions, of course. But a guy might just find himself pining for the fjords.

Given the snail's pace of the U.S. legal system in this case, he might just decide to stay in Europe.

Groklaw says that Linus hasn't gotten a subpoena yet, either... at least, for the time being.

Someone had the bright idea to check with Linus and apparently he hasn't received anything.

For more info head over to GrokLaw

I was wondering if anyone can confirm what I read previously over at Groklaw that IBM received hard copies of the information requested about source code items but not soft copies which they could use to do some computer based comparisons. (See "All SCO has turned over so far, IBM says, is that paper printout" )

If IBM supposedly has the source, based on past agreements made (surely they can find that tape, CD, or archived file somewhere) that they "stole" the information from, can't they use this source to compare against existing linux source to compare for similarities, similar to what SGI did? If IBM doesn't have these, then it seems like SCO is in violation for not providing this information, but I'm sure this is not the case.

I know doing comparisons does SCO's work for them, but this is the only way they will likely identify any possible similarities, especially since SCO is so reluctant to provide details. Once they are identified, then do a check on these files for all those who have made changes to this file and figured out whom he worked for at the time. And also once found we can compare against existing openly available versions of source to ensure that this information was not freely available by some other means in an earlier version.

Enjoy.

Reminds me of the Co$ documents being included in a court filing in Sweden. Suddenly, the "trade secrets" are publicly available from the Swedish courts to anyone anywhere who will pay the [small] copying fee.

-paul