Slashdot Mirror
SCO vs Linux.. Continued
An anonymous reader writes "ComputerWorld has an interview with Chris Sontag, from SCO.
Now the story has a pretty face." The interview has a variety of comments worth noting like how much source code SCO thinks has slipped from unix to linux. This story continues to amaze me.
i have used system V code too, here's some:
for (i=0; iblah; i++){
blah;
}
There\'s no place like ~
Q&A: SCO's Chris Sontag on Linux, Unix and brewing legal fights by PATRICK THIBODEAU
... but to seek an opinion of their legal counsel as to the issues that we raised.
In two weeks, The SCO Group Inc. intends to begin showing analysts where the Unix code it owns has been illegally copied into the Linux kernel. The source code will be made available to parties who agree not to disclose the Unix source code, but they will be able to share publicly their assessments of SCO's claim. SCO has filed a $1 billion lawsuit against IBM alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims and has warned some 1,500 businesses that they may be using Linux at their legal peril.
In an interview with Computerworld reporter Patrick Thibodeau, SCO's Chris Sontag, a senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource Division, the group within SCO in charge of enforcing the company's intellectual property, discussed the company's position
Why should Linux users take your claim seriously?
Think about if I was the CIO of a company and I'm going to be running my business on an operating system that has an intellectual property foundation that, by almost everyone's admission, is built on quicksand. There is no mechanism in Linux to ensure [the legality of] that intellectual property of the source code being contributed by various people. We fully believe there are many contributions made by good, hard-working individuals into Linux that are not of issue. But based on the research that we have done, we have identified specific Unix System V code for which we have ownership rights that have ended up in Linux against our wishes. There is inappropriate intellectual property in Linux. The development process has no one that is ensuring that inappropriate code is not getting into Linux. All that's there is an honor system, and obviously there are a few, at least, that have broken that honor.
Your letter to 1,500 end-user companies outlining your claim was vague. What is it that you want from these companies?
The one thing that we specifically want from those 1,500 companies that we directly sent those letters to is for them to not take our word on the warning that we sent
What do you see as a company's options in the face of your warning?
I would suspend any new Linux-related activities until this is all sorted out. But first get that opinion of your legal counsel. If they say there is no problem and no issue, then you probably have nothing to worry about. But I doubt there is any attorney worth his salt that is going to say there is no potential of an issue here. There is a big issue.
Should companies remove Linux from their systems?
We're not making any specific recommendations at this time. We're still getting our arms around the size of this problem. We're still identifying more and more code from Unix System V that is in Linux, and so we haven't even fully scoped the problem. It's hard to come up with solutions until you have the full problem identified, and as you may guess, it's a very big problem.
Are you considering suing Linux users that you notified?
Anything is always a possibility. If you are going to enforce your contracts, claims and intellectual property, you have to be able to go to ultimately the endpoint of infringement.
You're claiming that Linux has been polluted with Unix code that you own, but you have not produced any evidence of that. Will you?
We will actually be providing some of the evidence next month to various industry analysts, respected press people and other industry leaders so that they don't have to take our word for it or wait until we show some of that evidence in court. We will actually be showing the code, and the basis for why we have made the allegations that we have. We are very confident about our case. Because we are dealing with confidential source code that we have never released without confidentiality agreements,
I just wish they would get on with it. They've create a nice media circus, but this challenge is important because its the first 'serious' challenge Linux has faced.
We are pretty smug (and maybe rightfully so) in our premature cavorting but you can count on this just being the first in a series of big business attempts to compete against a operating system that's free.
Right now a corporation is testing the waters.
Quack, quack.
... which also means that, having violated the GPL they lost the right to distribute Linux. That's the real reason they stopped selling it.
How about SO, then?
[ insert your own witty .sig here ]
But, uh, anybody in the world can view the Linux source code that they claim is identical without signing an NDA, so how exactly is this protecting them?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
SCO vs. Linux topic item.
Or even better
Submit your small stories that has anything to do with SCO vs Linux to:
http://scovslinux.slashdot.org
Please God make the pain stop.
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."