SCO Calls IBM Countersuit "Unsubstantiated Allegations"

dacarr writes "Yahoo currently hosts a press release from SCO that basically calls for IBM to "move away from the GPL"." Lycoris tries to dodge the flood of idiocy from Utah. Another non-programmer has seen SCO's presentation, and without attempting to verify the facts through his own research, reported on it. One reader buys a SCO license. SCO justifies their continuing illegal distribution of the Linux kernel.

Comments

SCO and IBM are juvenile delinquents

[segment]

Let's stop all this confusion with some factual information, you know reading between the lines of he said she said corp. style. According to SCO spokesperson Blake Stowell in an article on Infoworld (src):

Stowell admitted that his company was still providing Linux source code and security patches on its Web site in order to fulfill support contracts with customers, but he disputed Kuhn's claim. "If our IP [intellectual property] is being found in Linux and that's being done without our say, then I don't think that the GPL can force us not to collect license fees from someone who may be using our intellectual property," he said.

IBM's complaint echoes Kuhn's criticism. SCO has included GPL code in its Linux products

This is the key to the confusion from my perspective: SCO has included GPL code in its Linux products. SCO is not seeking any injuctions for anything Linux but the core UNIX codes. Sounds very confusing, but according to what I'm reading, like it or not SCO has the right to charge. Now back to the rest of what was said: and "by so doing, SCO accepted the terms of the GPL," the complaint says. By seeking licensing fees, SCO is in breach of the license, it says.

Let's look at makeshift diagram:

[ ORIG.UNIX.CODE ] = item1 (SCO's Intellectual property)

[ LINUX.CODE ] = item2

Now if SCO is selling 2 which contains elements of 1, SCO has the right to do so since it's their intellectual property. Now SCO is claiming item2 contains portions of item1 and is redistributing item2 without permissions for the portions taken from item1 (which is their Intellectual Property). They don't seem to be complaining about whether item2 is sold or wanting credit for item2, they want compensation for the portions being used it's that simple. There is so much distortion in this matter, and all these so called "Open Source Movements" are going to end up backfiring on everyone.

IBM and SCO should know better than getting into this whole mess, and IBM is equally guilty. For starters it just shows an extreme amount of corporate immaturity, it shows that the Open Source community cannot get their act right. So why would a company want to choose a product which has an uncertain future? Sure MS may suck at times, but at least you don't hear this juvenile crap from their camp.

Re:SCO vs OJ

[ihummel]

Exactly right. I just hope that it doesn't end like the OJ trial, i.e., with a serious miscarriage of justice.

Re:Beginning to look Valid

[NoCoward]

Of course, IT COULD BE VALID AS WELL. No one here wants to hear it, which is why I got a -1 flamebait.

I still maintain that IT LOOKS LIKE THEIR CLAIMS ARE VALID. It is unlikely that SCO copied from Linux, SCO would know the history and wouldn't make such a claim if that would be the case. Also, comments would be identical even if the implementation of the algorithm was.
It is VERY LIKELY that a former or current SCO employee or someone who had access to the codebase simply added the code in. Why is that so hard for you people to believe? There are no controls in place to prevent it.

Re:No, it isn't

[NoCoward]

"Of course any code that we don't own is always removed from GPL software. WE respect the property rights of others. It would be unlawful for us to allow such code to remain in place"

Well apparently that didn't happen in this case. According to SCO, the code is in the code base. It is too late to say sorry and take it out.