IBM Adds SCO Counterclaim Charging Copyright Infringement

linuxjack55 writes "According to Yahoo! Finance, IBM has filed yet another counterclaim against SCO, this time claiming that SCO 'infringed IBM's copyrights by distributing IBM's contributions to Linux after SCO had violated its Linux license by claiming a copyright on parts of Linux.' Like it or not, it looks like the GPL is going to get a full vetting in this case. It is, however, nice to know that IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL."

Comments

WLTSIM comments on press coverage

[Demona]

From We Love the SCO Information Minister:

"I think this [website] comes from a few individuals in the open-source community, which tends to paint a bad picture of the community as a whole. I think most in the open-source community are good, hard-working developers that want to create some great things. It's unfortunate that a few bad apples spoil the image of the whole group." - Blake Stowell, September 25 2003

Thanks to SearchEnterpriseLinux for their coverage, but we must disagree with the statement that our site "excerpts several comments SCO officials have allegedly made about Linux during the past year or so." None of these comments are "allegedly" -- they're 100% verifiable fact, statements made in front of God and everyone...which is the point of providing links, so the reader can check the full original context. Of greater significance is the assumption that our creation must be motivated by anger; since we don't know Darl personally, our feelings could best be described as "affection". Like Saeed al-Sahaf, McBride proves that "truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense." With his rampant contradictions and defiance of all logic, he provides us with the finest gift of all -- the gift of laughter. Rather than provide needless attempts at witty commentary, we prefer to let his statements speak for themselves.

Stowell and company should recognize WLTSIM as being far less hostile to them than their own crude propaganda was to the Linux community.

Correction

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

IBM's fire-breathing legion of IP lawyers is on the side of the GPL.

(1) It's IBM that's on the side of the GPL. It's fire-breath lawyers are on the side of whoever pays them.

(2) IBM is on the side of the GPL because they don't have much of a choice : they don't really have an OS of their own, and they had already invested millions in promoting Linux before this whole SCO idiocy.

This said, if IBM's lawyers reckon the GPL is a tool worth using in court, then you can be pretty sure it's a solid license, which is good news for the rest of us (read: IBM's money has paid for a very thorough review of the GPL for the rest of us. Thanks guys!)

I like IBM's approach better than HP.

[ron_ivi]

So to summarize:

IBM: "Free software wants to be free."

HP: "Pay us because free software is scary."

Re:No it's not

[pknoll]

I doubt this crap will make it to court. SCO is bluffing all the way.

As another poster pointed out, SCO no longer has a choice. They cannot simply wave a magic wand and make IBM's countersuit disappear if IBM isn't interested in an out of court solution.

They may have been bluffing, but IBM has called them on it.

Re:SCO responds.

[rgmoore]

Do they understnd the GPL at all?

No, they don't. But IBM does. There's a great quote from IBM later in the article:

"The typical approach to indemnity, and apparently HP's approach as outlined in the press, we believe runs fundamentally counter to the Linux value proposition," Samson wrote. Because HP's indemnification is rendered void as soon as customers make modifications to the source code, "it will inhibit customers from taking full advantage of the open source development process," he wrote.

That's a quote from somebody who genuinely understands the power of Free/Open Source software.

It's pretty clear that IBM's lawyers get the legal aspects of the GPL, too. I remember hearing a story about IBM when they were first considering going into Free/Open Source software. IBM, being IBM, didn't want to get involved without understanding the legal issues, so they asked their lawyers to look over the GPL. The lawyers came back with the opinion that it was a well written legal document. Their business background meant that they didn't understand why anyone would want to release their code under the GPL, but they agreed that it actually would achieve its goal of keeping the source open. IBM never would have used GPLed software if they weren't quite confident that the license was sound.