IBM Points Out SCO's GPL Software Distribution

An anonymous reader writes "Cnet is reporting that IBM has launched a counterstrike against SCO Group's attack on Linux users, arguing that SCO's demands for Unix license payments are undermined by its earlier shipment of an open-source Linux product." JayJay.br points out a similar but more colorful article on The Register "in which SCO says that 'SCO-Caldera does not own the copyrights to JFS (Journaling File System), RCU (Read, Copy, and Update), NUMA (Non-uniform Memory Access) software, and other IBM-developed AIX code that IBM contributed to the Linux kernel.' Gee, now that I was almost buying their license ..."

Comments

Double standard, double talk.

[pair-a-noyd]

"On Friday, SCO spokesman Blake Stowell reiterated the company's earlier position that the GPL provisions don't apply because SCO is the Unix copyright holder and it never placed the copyrighted code under the GPL."

Bullshit. Go to their FTP site and READ THE GPL they have posted there. It states explicitly that SCO is distributing the code under the GPL.

Fscking LIARS....

Oh yeah, hey Darl, here's a little something special for you:
Behold, the truth..

Even better

[einhverfr]

From the article:

It appears from Blake Stowell's answers to the copyright-related questions that SCO says it does not have copyrights to JFS, RCU, and NUMA software code or to items (a) through (k) of paragraph 108 of SCO's Amended Complaint in the SCO-Caldera v IBM lawsuit.

From the amended complaing:
108. IBM has breached 2.05 of the Software Agreement by, inter alia, actively promoting and allowing use of the Software Products and development methods related thereto in an open and hostile attempt to destroy the entire economic value of the Software Products and plaintiff's rights to protect the proprietary nature of the Software Products. By way of example and not limitation, IBM has used protected UNIX methods for others in accelerating development of the 2.4.x kernel and 2.5.x Linux kernel in, among others, the following areas: (a) scalability improvements, (b) performance measurement and improvements, (c) serviceability and error logging improvements, (d) NUMA scheduler and other scheduler improvements, (e) Linux PPC 32- and 64-bit support, (f) AIX Journaling File System, (g) enterprise volume management system to other Linux components, (h) clusters and cluster installation, including distributed lock manager and other lock management technologies, (i) threading, (j) general systems management functions, and (k) other areas. But for the use by IBM of these protected UNIX methods in Linux development, the Linux 2.4.x kernel and 2.5.x kernel capacity to perform high-end enterprise computing functions would be severely limited.

This is big. In essence, SCO has admitted that they don't really have *any* copyright case and that Linux intellectual property is all above board. They can still accuse IBM of breach of contract, but I really don't think any of us have the details on what the contracts stated.

Re:Even better

[norwoodites]

PPC did not exist until Apple, IBM, and MOT got together to design it. On the other hand Power (or RS6000) did exist and is what PPC is based on which was running AIX. Linux on PPC did not exist until Apple added support for it that is what I was trying to say; IBM was not the one who first added support for it, Apple was and that was back in Summer of 1998 see www.mklinux.org.

Re:Even better

[MuParadigm]

"In essence, SCO has admitted that they don't really have *any* copyright case and that Linux intellectual property is all above board. They can still accuse IBM of breach of contract..."

Finally, someone gets it right. Darl has said in interviews, "We know IBM put code in there (Linux). Their copyrights are in it." Darl is not claiming that SCO owns the copyrights. Yet.

SCO alleges that IBM had no right to share code with the Linux project, because SCO's contracts with IBM compel IBM to keep any derivative work confidential. In other words, despite SCO's attempts to "license" Linux, the only case they have outstanding is still a contract breach with IBM.

"...but I really don't think any of us have the details on what the contracts stated."

The contracts are available at SCO's website. Go to http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit. The IBM contracts are Exhibits A-D on the right hand sidebar. Exhibit E is the letter from Darl to Palmisano threatening to terminate IBM's AIX license. Exhibits F-G are the Sequent contracts.

In Exhibit C (section 2), the contract grants ownership of IBM's derivative works to IBM. Exhibit D, section 3.04, would seem to confirm that IBM is not obligated to keep confidential any of its derivative works.

Besides, I doubt that a judge will be willing to accept a definition of "ownership" that obliges the owner to treat its own work as confidential.

So, SCO's case against IBM still looks pretty weak.

SCO's allegations that Linux illegally appropriates derivative work also seems equally weak. SCO's main allegation against Linux is that any code contributed by an ISV or IHV (that has contracts with SCO) is a misappropriation of code that should have been kept confidential under SCO's contracts with them.

This seems to also fall apart under section 3.04 of Exhibit D, because that clause is part of what looks like a standard contract that SCO used with *all* parties to renew System V licenses after its purchase of the source from Novell. In other words, that clause is not part of an IBM side agreement, but appears to be a grant SCO made to any ISV or IHV licensing the System V source.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer, so none of the above should be construed as legal advice. It's just my opinion, derived from reading the contracts that SCO published on their web site and referenced in their court claims.

Re:Where's the meat?

[Rabidbunnylover]

According to that article a while back about the person visiting SCO, those that sign the NDA aren't given copies of the offending code. All he was able to do was look at a Powerpoint presentation that didn't even specify what version of Linux the code was from. Additionally, since anybody who signs the NDA can basically be barred from kernel development work, those who take SCO up probably aren't going to be familiar enough with the components SCO is talking about to be able to recall the exact sections of code from memory.

Re:This is all they've come up with for a defense?

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM actually has 9 different affirmative defenses against SCO in their response. The GPL issue is probably just part of 1 of these defenses (number 7th).

Even if none of these 9 were to work, the burden would still be on SCO to prove the 100+ assertions in their complaint.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Richardsonke1]

yeah, you're right. Look at the insider trading on yahoo: http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html. Over 1.25 MILLION dollars since June 20th. I also like how someone some of them, like Jeff Hunsaker, and Reginald Broughton traded twice on the same day, but once it went down as "Vice President" or "Senior Vice President" but the second time it went down as "Employee." Sounds kinda weird...

Factual Article at ZDnet

[Famatra]

I'm surprised this article was not posted, it is very factual:

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/mai n/0,14179,2914364,00.html

Re:Well either way...

[Mostly a lurker]

... can she get a lawyer and countersue SCO for their aggressive, deceptive tactics?

If and when SCO loses, they are rapidly going to be out of business. Any small business that spends legal fees going after SCO at this point will just be wasting money.

SCOX insider trades

[Anonymous Coward]

2003-07-23 HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Vice President 5,000 Automatic Sale at $13.30 - $13.44 per share.
(Proceeds of about $67,000)
2003-07-22 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Senior Vice President 20,000 Automatic Sale at $12.91 - $13.2 per share.
(Proceeds of about $261,000)
2003-07-17 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C. 15,000 Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $195,000)
2003-07-15 WILSON, MICHAEL SEAN
Senior Vice President 6,000 Option Exercise at $0.66 per share.
(Cost of $3,960)
2003-07-15 WILSON, MICHAEL SEAN
Senior Vice President 6,000 Sale at $10.66 - $10.8 per share.
(Proceeds of about $64,000)
2003-07-14 WILSON, MICHAEL
Senior Vice President 6,000 Option Exercise at $0.66 per share.
(Cost of $3,960)
2003-07-14 WILSON, MICHAEL
Senior Vice President 6,000 Sale at $10.77 - $10.87 per share.
(Proceeds of about $65,000)
2003-07-11 OLSON, MICHAEL P
Vice President 8,000 Automatic Sale at $10.40 - $10.99 per share.
(Proceeds of about $86,000)
2003-07-09 HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Vice President 5,000 Sale at $11.76 - $11.814 per share.
(Proceeds of about $59,000)
2003-07-09 HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Vice President 5,000 Automatic Sale at $11.76 - $11.814 per share.
(Proceeds of about $59,000)
2003-07-09 HUNSAKER, JEFF F.
Employee 5,000 Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $55,000)
2003-07-08 BENCH, ROBERT K.
Chief Financial Officer 7,000 Automatic Sale at $10.91 - $11.12 per share.
(Proceeds of about $77,000)
2003-07-08 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Senior Vice President 5,000 Automatic Sale at $10.90 - $10.95 per share.
(Proceeds of about $55,000)
2003-07-08 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Employee 5,000 Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $56,450)
2003-06-25 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Sr Executive Vice President 5,000 Automatic Sale at $10 per share.
(Proceeds of $50,000)
2003-06-20 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Senior Vice President 5,000 Sale at $11.08 - $11.1 per share.
(Proceeds of about $55,000)
2003-06-20 BROUGHTON, REGINALD C.
Employee 5,000 Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $53,750)