Is Licensing SCO Unix Legally Dangerous?

cheros asks: "I'm starting to get very puzzled by the SCO licensing scheme - am I mistaken or is licensing SCO actually about the most dangerous thing you can do as business or end user using Linux? [disclaimer: IANAL and AFAIK, so get decent legal council - I might be completely wrong ;-)] If I buy a copy of Linux from a provider, my contract is with that provider, NOT with SCO. In other words, if said provider has supplied me with something dodgy (and that is still very much an open question IMO), the issue lies with SCO and the provider, not with me and SCO, as I have no contractual relation with SCO in any way, shape or form. So, licensing SCO might actually CREATE that relationship and thus enable SCO to play further games with enforceable contractual obligations, something it currently lacks with end users. If that is correct it puts SCO in an even worse light (if that's possible) as that could mean deception as well as FUD. The latter might have become accepted in business and politics, but the former might actually be illegal in some countries. In short, as far as I can see you don't actually have a problem as a Linux end user...until you get a license. Comments?"

Comments

The one thing that licensing SCO linux will do is

[Xenkar]

It will make all of your linux friends laugh at you. Your new nickname will be SCO boy or something less flattering.

This is worse than college football speculation.

[BoomerSooner]

At least with college football it will be concluded by january. This damn SCO thing is going to go on forever.

Use linux, ignore SCO until they are done with IBM. And for the love of god quit asking slashdot, ask your lawyer.

Your contract is with the distributor

[Dancin_Santa]

However, the distributor must comply with the terms of the copyright holder. If SCO holds any copyrights that are not covered by the GPL on the Linux codebase, your distributor is in violation of SCO's copyright unless they have specific exemptions granted by SCO.

The upshot of this is that you as a consumer are safe from litigation, but if you were a distributor of the code (even passing a CD around the office would suffice) then you can be charged with copyright violations of SCO's code.

Re:Your contract is with the distributor

[deanpole]

Yeah, so buy your Linux from Sun. According to SCO they are the only Unix licensee who is completely paid up and squeaky clean. It only takes one copy by one person. GPL for one, GPL for all. :-)

So..

[Anonvmous Coward]

... when's sco.slashdot.org gonna go online?

Re:So..

[killmenow]

yeah...so then I can put this in my host file:

127.0.0.1 sco.slashdot.org

OSDL paper by Eben Moglen

[ciaran_o_riordan]

OSDL have produced Positional Paper on the SCO issue.

It's a very well written 5-page document by FSF General counsel Eben Moglen, and can be found here.

Ciaran O'Riordan
--

Re:The one thing that licensing SCO linux will do

[Ummagumma]

It will make all of your linux friends laugh at you.

Linux users have friends? I mean, other than the little stuffed penguin I^H *ahem* they keep on the monitor?

Exactly!

[Greyjack]

Yep, it's just like when you buy a used stereo from a guy, and find out later that he stole it from someone else. Since you bought it in good faith, and in legal fashion, you get to keep it! After all, you didn't do anything wrong, why should YOU get screwed?

Boy, this legal stuff is fun -- hit me with another one!

Re:Exactly!

[nathanh]

Yep, it's just like when you buy a used stereo from a guy, and find out later that he stole it from someone else. Since you bought it in good faith, and in legal fashion, you get to keep it! After all, you didn't do anything wrong, why should YOU get screwed?

It's not the same thing, because your example deals with physical property and the article's example is related to intellectual property and contractual agreements.

Boy, this legal stuff is fun -- hit me with another one!

Why bother, when you get even the easy ones wrong. Especially when the article is basically rephrasing what Eben Moglen said; you know, the professor who actually does know "legal stuff".

Moglen points out that copyright law is not relevant to customers "using" Linux. In much the same way that readers can enjoy a book or a newspaper without a copyright license, so can users of software -- unless they have agreed to additional use restrictions in, for example, a shrink-wrapped box of software.

But why do I get the impression that you're going to keep talking anyway.

Re:Exactly!

[Greyjack]

Um, I was being sarcastic.

Say you buy a used stereo you find listed in the classified ads of your local newspaper. Then, a week later, the cops knock on your door to tell you it was originally stolen. What do you think happens then?

If you bought it in good faith, you don't get arrested, no. But the cops take the stereo, and you're left to try and get your money back from the sleazeball that sold it to you.

"Intellectual Property" isn't an accidental name -- it's property. If, instead of a stereo, it was a piece of software, I'd be very surprised if the actual owner who's work was ripped off would actually be so hamstrung; rather, I'll bet they could very easily drag you into court and demand that you either a) pay up, or b) stop using the software.

Gee, kinda like SCO's doing right now! If we discover we actually ARE in some weird bent universe where SCO wins out in all this, fifty bucks says we WILL have to pay them or be branded pirates. But, we'll get to sue the hell out of RedHat, IBM, etc, to the extent that we actually paid them in the first place.

Now, this DOESN'T mean that I think SCO has a case here, at all. I'm merely suggesting that this argument doesn't strike me as holding much water (otherwise, an Ask Slashdot wouldn't be the first place we heard about it -- it's an angle the more legally attuned Bigs would be pounding SCO with in much more public fashion).

No, SCO is going to wind up in a world of hurt because they've ALREADY given their code away under the GPL.

Further, five bucks says there's a handful greybeards out there who have full sets of circa 1974 unix source code, fresh from their personal archives, ready and waiting to be grep'ed for whatever code SCO is claiming is theirs. Given Unix's long, crufty evolution, there's doubtless TONS of code in there that SCO is assuming is theirs, but in actuality isn't.

That, and they already gave away all their damn code under the GPL anyway. But then, I already said that :)

Re:Exactly!

[EelBait]

You forgot that the phrase "Intellectual Property" is not a legal term. It is an attempt by sleazy lawyers to lump copyright, trademark, patents, etc. into some sort of catch-all even though they are nothing in common. Since the law does not recognize "intellectual property" your whole argument is baseless.

Re:Exactly!

[Qzukk]

I don't think the minor semantic issues invalidate my point.

The problem is that they don't validate your point, either. Legally, your choices here are copyright infringement, patent infringement, and trademark infringement. Its clear that we do not infringe on SCO's trademarks because "Linux" is registered and in Torvald's name.

Our next choice is patent infringement. Their claims that every variant of Unix and piece of software written for Unix infringes on their "Intellectual Property" might have a claim here... but nobody's been able to turn up a patent in their name covering this. No patent, no infringement.

The last choice is copyright infringement. Here they might have some small fraction of their case against IBM: If someone at IBM took their written code and inserted it into Linux, SCO has a case. Even if the code was changed a little to avoid being a word-for-word copy, it would still bear the taint of being a derivative work or otherwise plagarized. In no way, though, could SCO claim to have copyrights on every piece of code in existance for Unix.

Failing that, their only recourse is breach of contract, which would be an issue strictly between IBM and SCO. If SCO wins on the grounds of that, they have NO recourse against any Linux user, because their contract is only between IBM and SCO.

I am not a lawyer, and there may be other laws I am unaware of, but that seems to pretty much cover the field as far as I'm aware.

Don't contact SCO yet - if at all

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not a lawyer, and neither are most Slashdot posters, so you're probably on a hiding to nowhere if you really expect to get advice on a legal matter here...

Before I start, they haven't even started offering Unixware for Linux licenses yet - so why are you considering taking precipitate action. At the very least wait until they offer it! (and no I'm not advising you necessarily take it when they do)

At least one lawyer seems to think you should not contact SCO, but maybe that's just Australia!

A couple of other points have been raised from time to time:

1. If you download Linux from ftp.sco.com (or get a CD), then you are getting from SCO under a GPL license. Some might say it's the end of the story, but even if it's not... SCO supplied it to you under a GPL license which they claim to have rescinded or not accepted (even while distributing it) - what is to stop them also rescinding or saying that they don't accept (in future) whatever new license terms you get their stuff under? They've done it once (GPL), how do you know they won't do it again (Unixware license for Linux)

2. If you get Linux under some SCO license, you might be violating the GPL license of all the other kernel contributors (including individuals and large companies). If SCO gets destroyed, or even if not, as a result of this law suit, these people/entities could allege you broke their license, and sue you.... and I think yes they will find out who you are if they really want to, even if you SCO deal is confidential. The route they would take would (a) sue SCO, (b) get the list of SCO Unixware for Linux licensees from SCO through (a), (c) sue the Unixware for Linux licensees.

Correct

[booch]

You are mostly correct. The whole SCO vs. IBM case is based on a contract dispute, not on any copyright or patent rights. SCO's CEO, Darl McBride, said in a teleconference that "we don't have any issues with copyright or patent with respect to any claims that we have made" regarding the IBM suit.

And in this article he mentions "contract" 12 times, but only mentions copyright once, and that's only in regard to removing copyright statements. It's almost as if he is being coy -- making it sound as if there is copyright infringement without ever directly saying it. In other interviews, he also avoids the word, choosing instead words such as "infringing" and "Intellectual Property". The SCOvsIBM page makes a similar observation:

Uncertainty is sown by much discussion of the case in terms of vague or broad terms such as "intellectual property" or "all rights", rather than addressing specific contractual, copyright, patent, or trademark claims. On specific grounds, Caldera/SCO's complaint seems quite limited.

An important thing to remember is that you cannot be sued over the contract that SCO has with IBM. Third parties cannot be held liable for contracts that they did not agree to. So if you have no contract with SCO, they can only sue you on the basis of copyright infringement. And you can only be sued for copyright infringement if you have copied or distributed something.

Do you really want to give SCO a new avenue by which to sue you? Given that SCO has not shown any evidence that anyone has infringed their copyrights, I don't see why you'd want to do that. SCO hasn't been exactly acting in good faith recently; I don't know if I'd trust any contracts they write up. Here's what Darl McBride says about SCO's use of contracts against their partners and customers:

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.

If I were you, I wouldn't even let them know that you use Linux. Why give them any evidence to use against you later? Try to stay off their radar.