SCO Claims Linux Sales After Suit Irrelevant

molarmass192 writes "Here's the first reaction I've seen from SCO regarding the public's stance that the code they distributed under the GPL negates their claims on code in the Linux kernel. They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "

Comments

Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I thought that (at least under English
Law) something is copyright whether or not there is
a notice on it.

Re:Copyright notices

[Anonymous Coward]

It is. That's not the issue. The issue is that something can only placed under the GPL by its copyright holder. If somebody ELSE places a work under the GPL, then the GPL does not apply.

SCO is saying that work that belonged to them was placed under the GPL by somebody else, and that therefore that work is not protected by the GPL, and that therefore... well, you know the rest.

Big Myths about copyrights

[rxed]

They claim that the lack of copyright notices "placed by the copyright holder" means that the GPL does not protect the unmentioned code in question. "

This was true in the past, but today all nations that follow the Berne copyright convention everything created after April 1, 1989 is considered copyrighted (GPL or otherwise) whether it has a notice or not.

SCO is running out of ideas. They are doomed.

Re:Big Myths about copyrights

[Abcd1234]

Actually, I believe the point of this argument is that, because SCO itself didn't choose to license the "unmentioned code" under the GPL (as they are the copyright holder), then the GPL does not apply, as per a couple clauses in the GPL itself.

Re:Sounds like "poisoned roots"

[Abcd1234]

Nope, their claim is this: We are the copyright holders of the pirated code. The code was stolen without our knowledge and placed in the Linux kernel. Therefore, the attempt to license said code under the GPL was done without our permission. Thus, since they did not have the authority to place our code under the GPL, the license does not apply (as per a clause in the GPL itself).

Here's SuSE's public statement

[cheros]

SuSE responds to latest SCO actions

The UnitedLinux product -- jointly designed and developed by SuSE Linux, Turbolinux, Conectiva and SCO -- will continue to be supported unconditionally by SuSE Linux. We will honor all UnitedLinux commitments to customers and partners, regardless of any actions that SCO may take or even allegations they may make.

SCO's actions are again indeed curious. We have asked SCO for clarification of their public statements, SCO has declined. We are not aware, nor has SCO made any attempt to make us aware, of any specific unauthorized code in any SuSE Linux product. As a matter of policy, we have diligent processes for ensuring that appropriate licensing arrangements (open source or otherwise) are in place for all code used in our products.

http://www.suse.de/en/company/press/press_releases /archive03/sco_statement.html

From the GPL...

[MrGrendel]

Section 2 b states:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

This means that even if some sections were in violation of SCO's copyright, then SCO still has to license the entire kernel under the GPL because other valid non-SCO copyrights are in there. They can't just pick and choose pieces, or even files, and claim that they are not covered. If they are part of the kernel, then SCO has to consider them to be covered if they want to redistribute. So, SCO either gave their implicit consent to release those sections under the GPL, or they can claim that they are and never were covered by the GPL, which means that SCO was distributing Linux without a license or any other permission to do so. If they can't or won't abide by the terms of the GPL for any reason, then they cannot distribute any of the code.

Re:From the GPL...

[jareds]

Here's why: If I get a job at Microsoft, and slip a bit of GPL code into the next Windows and Office release, without Microsoft's knowledge, it is just too bad for them and the whole thing is free (as in beer) now?

No, it means that Microsoft has either released it under the GPL or committed copyright infringement. They can cease distributing the version that includes the code they have no right to, and pay damages to the copyright holder. The latter option is no different than the consequences of an employee slipping in code copyrighted by someone else but not covered by the GPL.

Likewise, SCO can either claim that they have released the code in question under the GPL, or that they have committed copyright infringement by distributing code covered by the GPL (the rest of Linux that isn't the alleged proprietary SCO code) without complying with the terms of the GPL. The difference between the SCO case and the hypothetical Microsoft case is that the SCO case would be willful infringement, since they have continued to distribute Linux since they filed the suit.

Re:Oh good grief.

[mark-t]

If it is "true", then it just points again to what a muddled mess software patents are

This suit is all about misappropriated trade secrets, not patents. SCO is not claiming to have patented the code in question here, so what you are saying doesn't apply. (Of course, I think software patents are abysmal too, but I see no reason to drag that issue into this.) Since it is about trade secrets, SCO will have to come up with some sort of proof that the code in question really was misappropriated from SCO and not just independantly developed (mere similarity of design doesn't by itself count as proof). Since Unix and its internals have been well documented in numerous books and talked about at length in many operating systems courses for over 20 years, I suspect SCO may have a heck of a time proving this.