Slashdot Mirror
Novell Claims Ownership of UNIX System V
Bruce Perens writes:
"We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of the big lie behind it.
"This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995 agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.
"In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their sham campaign against Linux.
"Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the Linux and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagiarism. Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
"It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to AT&T's original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers in a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel out of this one.
"Microsoft executives also have egg on their faces. The company self-servingly rushed to buy an SCO license one business day after the threat letter, bringing a senior attorney to the office on a Sunday to tell the press how much Microsoft values intellectual property. Microsoft's management could have taken the time to analyze SCO's claims, if the company had wanted this license for practical and technical reasons. Their decision to buy when they did must have been motivated by a desire to add to SCO's fear campaign. Of course they'll grab any opportunity to spread fear about Linux, but this time Microsoft bought a pig in a poke.
"SCO management, if they insist on standing in the way of a train, could still claim that software they developed in the years since 1995 is being infringed by the Open Source developers. That claim, always a dubious one, will be difficult to take seriously now that their prevarication throughout this campaign has come to light. SCO would be well advised to drop their suit against IBM in exchange for IBM's agreement not to counter-sue. But IBM might not feel that charitable toward SCO.
"In contrast to SCO, Novell's made a friend among the Free Software developers. We're always happy to see people using our software. But a real partnership between an IT vendor and our community is an equal partnership, with the company donating services and new software in exchange for the value it receives. Novell has already placed important software under Open Source licenses. Today, the company has done us a tremendous service, by stomping upon an obnoxious parasite."
For now, we demand that SCO either promptly state its Linux infringement allegations with specificity or recant the accusation made in your letter. Further, we demand that SCO retract its false and unsupported assertions of ownership in UNIX patents and copyrights or provide us with conclusive information regarding SCO's ownership claims.
Finally, SCO being put in its place. I just wonder why this took so long for Novell to bring up.
"Engineers do the work of man, Physicists do the work of God"
That's hilarious! Especially the part saying "you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership over the past three months" (words are my own). If this is true, then it shows what SCO has been doing is extremely, extremely immoral. They knew they had no basis for suing IBM and for demanding that companies license SCO, but they did it anway to try to make some money. All I want to know is, who's idea was it - Microsoft's? ;)
I remember long ago, when Richard Strawlman warned that the LZW algorithm (used by compress) wasn't free. So he wrote zip, which was free. People laughed at him at the time, but when Unisys acquired the LZW patent and started charging fees, he was universially acknowledged as a genius.
Likewise, it's probably best to migrate away from Unix since Novell could still bring up infringement claims. HuRD or Minix are probably the best alternatives.
So what did MS buy from SCO ?
And most importantly, how much did they buy it for ?
A "pig in a poke" means a bag with a piglet in it, the traditional way of selling a piglet because it's a lot easier to carry that way.
"Letting the cat out of the bag" refers to the other traditional way of selling a "pig in a poke" that is really a cat. The purchaser isn't expected to look inside the bag until they've gotten home out of the risk the piglet will escape. When they do look, they find out the truth.
So...Microsoft DID NOT buy a pig in a poke.
How the heck did SCO buy "Unix" without buying the copyrights? Why have they been in discussion (dispute?) between SCO and Novell for the past several months? Novell's letter has qualifiers like "to our knowledge" when it says SCO doesn't own the copyrights. It sounds like the Novell-SCO agreement has been flawed all along and nobody knows what the real situation is.
I think there are yet more layers to this madness waiting to be unpeeled.
Based on SCO's response, claiming that no patent or copyright issues are involved, then Linux and Linux users are safe from any action by SCO EVEN IF SCO WINS AGAINST IBM. I certainly hope SCO doesn't win, but even if they do, since the entirety of their claims are contract based, and NOT copyright or patent based, the Linux code base can't be touched.
This whole thing has really started to remind me of the eniac patent suit. As soon as some technology starts to take off (long after it has actually been created), some larger adversary comes out and tries to threaten the validity of the original claims.
The exact same thing happened when Sperry (the company that bough Eckert and Mauchly's company, which made UNIVAC) was sued for rights to the ENIAC patent (that Mauchly and Eckert at the time held). No one had contested that Eckert and Mauchly had designed the first electronic computer, but instead had hooked onto details in the patent file. Ironically, IBM was in a very similar position as it is with the SCO/Linux problem. IBM has cooperated with open source to a great degree, just as it had licensed Eckert and Mauchly's products and was seen as a supported of the "dark side" by SCO, just as they were seen by those trying to strip E & M of their patents.
History really has a funny way of repeating itself
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Novells the champ I suppose here, it will win enormous support form the Linux community on this issue if it can really torpedo SCO, but the big fish is Microsoft. Their link to SCO absolutely must be revealed, I think IBM Suse Redhat Novell and others will have an easy time suing Microsoft back on this if the connection is properly revealed.
This issue must be shut ASAP, because it might be causing jitters among ignorant corporate decision makers and consultants. People like Linus should come out to the public after SCO's claims have been squashed, to get the word out that Linux's license is robust and will not drown the way some other UNIXen did.
And finally it would make Novell a hero to release the whole UNIX under an opensource license, preferably GPL, since they're contemplating moving to Linux anyway. These guys have been really innovative for the Internet and the practically invented the LAN for the masses, they should be supported. Their support in these tough times shows the principles behind the free software movement are not simply financially motivated, but are based on ideals that UNIX users and developers anywhere in the world can relate to. Microsoft couldnt fight that.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
SCO can sue IBM for breach of contract. IBM can lose. It'll not make a blind bit of difference to anyone except IBM and SCO and anyone else who signed a contract with SCO.
Anything generically aimed at Linux now is FUD.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
But the penalies against IBM will be higher if the code cannot be retracted and breach of contract is proven. I was just reading the Business Week article and they only talk about suing IBM for breach of contract, not IP issues.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Is not the Founder of Novell also the founder of SCO Group?
You would think he would have warned the SCO Group board about their own stupidity, no?
Don't Tread on OpenSource
In other words, Novell (assuming they do in fact retain copyright) can make this go away for Linux simply by, at whatever point SCO reveals what source was theoretically copied into Linux, slapping a copyright notice on the appropriate files and granting GPL on the code involved.
Unless, of course, what SCO means by having the "contract rights" to Unix involves having the exclusive right to license the source (but if so, why didn't they say so?). And, how exactly would posessing the exclusive right to license be different from copyright itself?
It looks like SCO might have stolen code from Linux, according to this post on the linux kernel mailing list
RFC1925
Their stock price is down today, so maybe The Street finally sees that the reality of the situation is that their operating systems division is failing. It is ironic that SCO made a profit selling licences to something that Novell now claims it 'owns' but I really cannot make sense of this mess any more. So maybe I just misundersand how SCO can sell licenses to something that Novell opwns the copyrights to.
Did anyone notice this?! I wasn't paying attention.
SCO 's Stock Performance
I think it's high time that the SEC got involved here.
Acts 17:28, "For in Him we live, and move, and have our being."
That's just pure unadulterated @#$!!. SCO sent out threatening letters to 1500 companies many of whom don't have contracts with SCO. If this case is about breach of contract then what in the heck is SCO doing intimidating these customers.
The fact of the matter is that SCO is simply trying to run up their share price so that SCO management can make a buck on the implosion of their company.
If what Novell claims is true then SCO has more than a few problems to handle. It will have to start with a global apology.
... Novel, unlike SCO, may not be thriving, but they aren't facing immenent bankrupcy either), then the fact that SCO lied to their shareholders is an SEC violation. It is fraud (among other things) and the perpetrators could be looking at a prison term (hopefully in a cockroach ridden, butt-slamming Pen, rather than Club Fed).
If this is true (and it almost certainly is
And, as others have pointed out, the civil damages and liability resulting from this fraudulant deception against SCO and those personally involved in the deception could well be quite staggaring. These people could well end up broke and in prison.
This, of course, assumes the government actually chooses to enforce the law this time. As we saw with the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, that is certainly not a given.
Regardless, however, it does vindicate GNU/Linux and free software in the extreme, and it does demonstrate the depths of depravity that Microsoft (who was quite transparently pushing this and financing it via a license they clearly weren't required to get) and its shills, such as SCO, will sink to.
The best revenge is living well, indeed, living better than those who have wronged you. Even if SCO were to get off scott free (unlikely), clearly, anyone running FreeBSD (which could theoretically have been targeted with a similiar FUD campaign) and GNU/Linux are living quite well (in the technical arena at least), certainly much better than the poor sops running Unixware and SCO, and arguably quite a bit better than those running the product of SCO's master in Redmond. We should take joy in that fact (but not let it slow down the counter suits and prosecutions from those who were more directly wronged by SCO's illegal and unconscionable behavior).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Actions
Wednesday May 28, 10:15 am ET
LINDON, Utah, May 28
SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor.
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.
From SCO's response, it appears they think that although they didn't buy the copyright, they did contract the exclusive distribution rights to the code. This appears to be like how Pixar contracted the exclusive distribution rights to its movies to Disney. Nobody can distribute all or parts of Toy Story except for Disney under the contract.
This wouldn't make it a copyright violation, but a contract violation that could have a serious ripple effect. We can't know until Novell or SCO releases the relevant terms of the contract.
Anyone know how much revenue they derive from licensing the source code?
I was just reading the Business Week article and they only talk about suing IBM for breach of contract, not IP issues.
Wrong, McBride claimed it was SCO's intellectual property. And they've been steadily escalating their claims to encompass the entire Linux community, not just IBM. Even if they do back down now, the damage to their case has already been done, and as others have pointed out this leaves them open to multiple lawsuits, including from the shareholders, and SEC action.
Looks like a German software group is also PO'd with SCO. See this ...link....
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
Just curious, doesn't SCO pay [the company handling the conference call] for each call received? With their limited cash flow they could be out of business by the end of the day.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
SCO: "Oh, no, we were NEVER suing for patent infringment - it was ALWAYS a contract dispute over the LICENSING of the code." So, Novell, how'd you like to make about a kajillion new fans? License the code to IBM for a buck. SCO is irrelevant, problem solved. P.S. Didn't I hear somewhere that NW7 is going to be a services based connectivity, authentication and management layer running on Linux? Samba? LDAP? NIS? ACLs? THAT would be cool.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Of course this address the "source code theft" issue. If Novell has the copyright, Novell must prosecute for copyright infringement.
After turning this over in my head a bit, I think you're right. SCO can go after IBM for breach of contract, but it would be Novell that would need to begin procedings to remove the code from Linux.
This assumes that the code in question is part of the SysV UNIX code that SCO bought from Novell. If it is something that SCO developed after the fact, it could be a different story. But since SCO has been begging Novell for the copyright to the SysV code, I can only assume that isn't the case.
the no
So if I'm understanding this, SCO can only sue those it has contracts with, like IBM, SuSE, Microsoft, etc...
Well, that's an incentive to NOT do business with them.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Piglets were easily transported to market in bags ("pokes").
Certain individuals would put a cat in the bag, instead of a pig. Cats were easier to find than pigs.
Certain stupid people would not open the bag to check if it was really a pig. Hence, "buying a pig in a poke".
Certain smart people would open the bag and the cat would escape. Hence, "letting the cat out of the bag".
Of course, if I were SCO and had paid for an exclusive license from Novell, I would sue Novell to force them to enforce their copyrights on the theory that an exclusive license is nothing of the sort if they are going to give away the code.
But, then, I am an evil businessperson.
Milo
Well, somebody certainly did some heavy selling at around 10 A.M. EDT... Volume up, price spiked low... It's climbed a bit in the past hour or so, but... *shrug* Draw yer own conclusions.
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
From this interview, I'm getting the sense that SCO is trying to argue that IBM wrote some code with SCO and took this same code and transfered it to Linux. Assuming the new code was somehow bound to the SCO UNIX license agreement, this argument might tred water if IBM released this same code under another license (ie: GPL).
The real FUD here is that SCO is trying to claim the Linux codebase is fundamentally a copy of UNIX System V. From SCO's original letter:
"We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights."
Oops... Clearly SCO does not own the IP to UNIX, this belongs to Novell. SCO is a merely a clearinghouse for managing the UNIX licensing. These words may come back to haunt them.
The new code developed jointly between IBM and SCO could be in question here, but this does not warrent a mass mailing to everyone in silicon valley. There will be reparations made, SCO has misstated the facts.
More FUD can be found here. The Stallman quote is most telling, "There is very little new stuff in Linux.". Stallman is not implying that Linux is a copylefted UNIX (as SCO would have you believe), but rather that Linux borrows the UNIX paradigm (pipes, processes, small programs for each command, etc.).
Don't be surprised when IBM, HP, Novell and others slap SCO a classaction lawsuite putting them in violation of their glorified UNIX policeman title.
Eric Sarjeant
eric[@]sarjeant.com
While IANAL, I hold 12 patents and have been involved in a variety of legal wrangles involving patents.
It would be very interesting to see the letters that SCO sent out. If they weren't worded very carefully, and they include assertions of IP rights that SCO in fact doesn't own they could definitely trigger a rash of lawsuits.
When I was working in this field we were VERY careful when we went trolling for license fees. Something like:
Dear Sirs:
It has come to our attention that you may want to consider licensing the following patents (list numbers here).
Signed
XYX Patent Attorney.
No claims of infringement etc. Just a word to the wise. The recipient would then decide what sort of position they were in and respond with something like:
Dear XYX:
We are interested in #47, and would like to offer a license to our #53 in exchange.
(In other words, yeah, we might be doing #47, but we think you are doing #53)
-or-
We are not interested. (Prove it).
-or-
We invented that long before you patented it and here is a copy of our documentation of the fact.
And so on.
Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights. [Emphasis added]
SCO Customers. Take note.
Now, SCO is about to get their asses sued off by some very angry competitors, and what if they decide to squeal that the whole thing was Microsoft's idea in the first place?
Oh brother, this could get NASTY.
Even if Microsoft was just suckered in by the potential to do damage to Linux, SCO can make it very embarassing to Microsoft. This could be a lot more fun to watch than previous lawsuits.
They don't actually say they own the code (in this excerpt), but rather, that they have licensed it to IBM. As I'm sure you know, there are often agreements made that allow corporations to sublicense works; although Novell owns the code itself, if they granted SCO the right to license it (as they apparently have), and SCO licensed it to IBM (as they apparently have), IBM is still responsible for using it legally.
Good point. But this would also make it a pure license/contract issue between SCO and IBM - SCO does evidently not hold copyright or patent rights to the code, so they can't go after SuSE or any other GNU/Linux distributor, vendor or user.
If IBM broke the license, SCO can get damages. But unless I'm missing something it seems like they can not go after any other party for using or distributing said code. That makes the threat letter a bit puzzling, to say the least.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
It seemed at first that he was being pretty careful with his wording, with stuff like: "SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX platform." But then...: "As the owners of the UNIX operating system..." They just said in their press release this morning that they never said they owned it, just the "contract rights" to it. It seems to me that this guy doesn't really understand the situation, that he was told by his lawyers "You can make money here" and he just believed them. He doesn't understand the difference between "derived from UNIX" and "works like UNIX". He even implicated that Sun might be a licensee of their source code, which, IIUC is false, Sun bought out their UNIX license before SCO got hold of even the limited rights to it they have.
Just another proletarian malcontent.
They just said that SCO has the UNIX copyrights!!!
(Premonition of law suit...)
First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
SCO's response to Novell's Unix IP claims by saying that this is ,surprise, a contract violation, and not a copyright violation, although I could pull out half a dozen direct SCO quotes, right now, showing SCO's claim to "owning UNIX IP", which, in the version of the english language I speak, means that they're talking about IP copyrights.
Their current claim about contract breaches means that Linux is not part of their suite, which means that they are open to being sued in Europe for libel(sp?).
I would so dearly love to hear what the Lawyers are going to say about their claims that Contracts are stronger than copyrights, given that copyrights are a binding and do form a kind of contract.
I actually enjoyed the call.
One thing that may be interesting for those who missed it was the statement that "3 independent code teams" looked at the linux code and found "not just a line or 2, but significant code violations".
What is an insignificant violation? Also, if they felt the need to have 3 teams look at it, that seams to suggest that it's a pretty subjective statement to say there is infringement.
But there could be language in the contract that states that Novell must enforce copyright voliations. If SCO can't rely on Novell to pursue copyright infringments, then Novell may be in breach of contract. We really don't know.
the no
Indeed, they are claiming the IBM suit is not about copyrights and patents (I refuse to use the term IP, since I don't believe it is a valid concept). If neither copyrights nor patents are involved, how can it affect GNU/Linux users and developers other than IBM?
What the CEO said in the conference call just confirmed to me that the attack on Linux is nothing more than FUD. He said that SCO saw they weren't making money distributing GNU/Linux, so they decided to discontinue it and focus on their own Unix products. My interpretation is that they need to encourage people to start using SCO products that cost lots of money; why would they switch from something that's free? When it was asked what current Caldera Linux users should do, the CEO said that SCO Unix products work nearly everywhere GNU/Linux ones do. He also pointed out how some people are delaying their use of GNU/Linux because of SCO's recent letter, so they're succeeding in the FUD campaign.
Microsoft's licensing agreement with SCO comes way too close to be a coincidence. They either saw a great opportunity to contribute to some Linux FUD and ran with it, or they were in on it from the start.
Conference call is over. Get the Replay here.
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
I'm glad to see SCO shown to be liars in public. Unfortunately, I don't think it has much bearing on the case. The core of SCO's allegation is that IBM violated nondisclosure agreements by copying secret enterprise scalability techniques from the Monterey project into Linux. This has nothing to do with the ancestral Unix code.
Maybe IBM can get the complaint dismissed since it contains incorrect statements. But maybe SCO can argue that the misstatements don't affect the core of their argument. My understanding is that if A sues B claiming 10 causes of action, and 9 of these are without merit, B could still be held liable for the 10th.
Well.. hopefully KARMA would catch up to SCO.
The world we be a happier place without SCO.
SCO is like a wounded animal backed into a corner.
Hopefully it will die from rabies.
Right now SCO is in it's rabbid phase, so hopefully
in about a year they will be dead.
It's time for all the Unix platforms to Unite!
IBM, HP, APPLE, SGI, Linux, we all need to get
together and nuke SCO off the planet with a lawsuit.
If the truth is as it now appears that SCO really has very little IP interest in the original Unix core, and Novell actually owns what IP remains, then of course they can release any possible legal liabilities for Linux as it is and even release versions of their Sys V property under a free license. Novell would be very wise to do something like this because there isn't much commercial value remaining in this IP. I claim that the commercial value would actually increase after they released all the old stuff under GPL or compatible license. Anyone wanting to create a commercial derivative product still has to come back to the original owners for a commercial license, and the GPL branch will bring experimentation and resources to both.
Wouldn't it be VERY HARD to determine WHAT damages would be?
IBM may have violated the license by inserting proprietary code into an open source project. But SCO, knowingly (and still apparently legally in all scenarios (since they were authorized to sub-license)) and willingly published the code under GPL.
Any damages would be constrained between the time IBM released the "stolen code" and the time when SCO blessed the code by knowingly releasing it under GPL.
Even beyond that, the fact that SCO DID publish it knowingly and willingly under GPL could be interpreted as implicit or even explicit permission for the code to be there in the first place thus indemnifying IBM from fault and damages.
It looks like SCO MUST now reveal WHAT code is affected just to stay relevant. They must differentiate their stuff from both Linux AND the source they received (under license) from Novell.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
But aren't "uncertainty" and "doubt" synonyms?
..that after all the whining they have done, they can still have this on their website:
United Linux
With claims like
"UnitedLinux provides the Linux business user with operating system platform that is focused on their needs and provides a greater choice of applications and hardware. The four geographically strong Linux partners, with headquarters in Asia, Europe, and South and North America, make it easier to provide local language support, training, and professional services. Customers now have a true international version of Linux. UnitedLinux enables more rapid adoption of Linux in the enterprise, which, in turn allows customers to reap the benefits of Linux with lower risk and cost."
it makes you wonder just how two faced they can be
It took the 2:00 bounce and is now heading south indicating that investors see no future for SCO.
SCOX 2:35pm 7.12 -1.59 -18.25% N/A N/A 7.12 7.29
Zoid.com
Novell is talking Patent and Copyright rights, SCO is talking "contract" rights.
SCO's reply states: "Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with."
This gives them no possible cause of action against anyone in the Linux community other than organizations that willingly entered into a contract with SCO. Moreover, it means that their entire case here can only be against IBM, for trade secret infringement of code that SCO itself published, which is not going to work. Yet SCO, by trying to claim trade secret protection on elements of the version of linux that they were shipping still violates the GPL clause 6 "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Would some kernel contributor wake up and sue SCO for copyright infringement, please.
IOW, Novell claims SCO doesn't own the code they haven't disclosed.
.sig
SCO hasn't said what the code is.
They haven't said what the routines are in general.
They haven't even indicated the amount of code involved.
Wake me when SCO says something that can be [disproved|proved].
-- this is not a
However, directly from their quarterly earnings page...
This looks like something the SEC should be looking into. Making false claims in a lawsuit is one thing - lawyers are expected to be liars in court. Making false declarations on financial statements is something else.
Information is not Knowledge