Seeing as Novell still hold the patents (they aren't mentioned in Amendment 2), but SCO wants them:
Let's see if Amendment 3 is found in another SCO filing cabinet (Novell having lost their copy), which explicitly transfers the patents to SCO.
UNIX and derivatives
on
Settling SCOres
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I am not a lawyer (get this out the way first), but my opinion of some highly relevant issues:
According to McBride's public statements, SCO view all the *nix variants as derivatives of their stuff. If anybody is interested enough to discuss this, but doesn't remember, I'll locate the news links and post them.
However as far as IBM is concerned: IBM are fully authorized in their contract to create derivatives of *nix - use any methods in the source - sublicense it as they choose - and what's more the contract says IBM own any derivative products that they create. The only proviso appears to be IBM should not copy code or whatever associated paperwork came with it (copying ideas and methods is explicitly allowed).
Furthermore, it actually explicitly says this on SCO's own web site, and as part of SCO's evidence. Go, for example, to top of page 2:
http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
So now, I think, we have yet another problem with SCO's case (aside from GPL issue, ATT v BSD issue, whether code was copied from or to SCO, whether SCO have the copyrights, whether anything in *nix is a trade secret given it's history, BSD contamination in *nix history undermining any copyright claim to entire *nix source, etc): Namely IBM are allowed to do more or less whatever they like in and with derivative UNIX products, explicitly stated in the contracts with ATT (which SCO inherited).
They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Second, they are claiming that IBM used "knowledge" of their OS to make Linux better.
I am not a lawyer, but the SCO-IBM contract, published on SCO's site appears to grant IBM the right to create derivative works, and use the knowledge any way they likely. It more or less says that explicitly. The only thing forbidden is cut and paste of code. Go to this link, and look at the top of page 2 especially http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
Article here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018 "Linux Coder puts SCO on notice". In short, the coder is annoyed they are distributing his code apparently out of compliance with GPL. My thoughts: This guy needs to get a lawyer and do this properly - i.e. a proper cease and desist, not an email. If we knew who it was, we could contribute to a legal fund to get him going.
I can't be bothered to look back but it's in the last SCO story. Paragraph 78 and 80 of their complaint basically try to say Linux is public domain except for the SCO parts - i.e. SCO owns Linux.
Chris Sontag is quoted on perens.com SCO research page as saying their is no legitimate use of Linux, and SCO want to get their hands round it all (I'm paraphrasing but you get the point).
Also on Perens' SCO research page are quotes or links to quotes, where SCO attack the GPL. Again consistent with this view.
Over on CNet.com, Chris Sontag is quoted as saying Linux and SCO stuff can never be untangled, but he's working on a solution for people troubled by the problem... which seems to be a hint: royalties for everybody using Linux.
As for MS inspiring a conspiracy, unlikely. More likely they would exploit it. According to an article on eweek.com about 2-3 weeks ago, MS weren't didn't pay up until after SCO contacted them about alleged IP infringements. (which presumably might be in their UNIX services package which includes tools to connect Windows to UNIX, and GNU stuff).
Yes you could just ask about Linux. But then if SCO say you'd have to pay them even if you buy Linux from somebody else, then it's own Linux vendors who'll be annoyed and might take action.
The advantage of involving other products (applications, hardware, etc.) is if you don't purchase them because of related SCO fears about the underlying OS, then Dell, or Oracle or whoever legal teams might start to take more of an interest in SCO's activities.
Not a lawyer, but I don't understand why people simply don't ask SCO if they are at risk of litigation by making new purchases of whatever.
1. If SCO replies you are at no risk, then presumably you are in the clear (at least can use their reply in court if SCO later turn round and do sue you).
2. If SCO doesn't reply, then presumably this will help limit any damage claims if they do sue you. You did the due diligence (especially if you send a couple of follow-ups and still don't get replies - keep good records!) - and it's at least partially their fault they didn't advise you.
3. If SCO reply yes they might sue you, then of course you want to talk to all vendors [and presumably their lawyers] affected - which includes hardware/database/applications/etc that you couldn't purchase, because of "uncertainty" about the OS platform. You might get indemnified by the vendor, and/or the vendor(s) may even take legal action against SCO especially if they see a lot of customers concerned about these issues.
Would a letter like this do?
Dear SCO,
Our company is considering purchasing a number of Dell/IBM/Other-Vendor computer systems with RedHat-Linux/Suse-Linux/AIX/Other-OS. We also expect to purchase application software to run on these platforms such as Oracle/SAP/Peoplesoft/DB2/Other-Product.
In view of the amount of press coverage regarding SCO's IP claims on UNIX and Linux, we would be interested in hearing whether, by proceeding with such purchases, we would be potentially risking litigation by SCO.
78. The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux.
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
It didn't happen because BSD was defended by a university's law team.
Despite IBM's advocacy of Linux, the bottom line is a corporation, and their interest is in protecting IBM's shareholders investment. If SCO for example offer to settle with IBM for little or nothing, provided IBM accepts parts of SCO's complaint (paragraph 78 and 80), SCO effectively win against everybody except IBM.
Even if SCO think it unlikely that their claims will fly, they are trying. From their complaint (emphasis added)
78. The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux.
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
I think means para 78 and 80. Which read (emphasis added):-
78. The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux.
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing as Novell still hold the patents (they aren't mentioned in Amendment 2), but SCO wants them: Let's see if Amendment 3 is found in another SCO filing cabinet (Novell having lost their copy), which explicitly transfers the patents to SCO.
I am not a lawyer (get this out the way first), but my opinion of some highly relevant issues:
According to McBride's public statements, SCO view all the *nix variants as derivatives of their stuff. If anybody is interested enough to discuss this, but doesn't remember, I'll locate the news links and post them.
However as far as IBM is concerned: IBM are fully authorized in their contract to create derivatives of *nix - use any methods in the source - sublicense it as they choose - and what's more the contract says IBM own any derivative products that they create. The only proviso appears to be IBM should not copy code or whatever associated paperwork came with it (copying ideas and methods is explicitly allowed).
Furthermore, it actually explicitly says this on SCO's own web site, and as part of SCO's evidence. Go, for example, to top of page 2: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
So now, I think, we have yet another problem with SCO's case (aside from GPL issue, ATT v BSD issue, whether code was copied from or to SCO, whether SCO have the copyrights, whether anything in *nix is a trade secret given it's history, BSD contamination in *nix history undermining any copyright claim to entire *nix source, etc): Namely IBM are allowed to do more or less whatever they like in and with derivative UNIX products, explicitly stated in the contracts with ATT (which SCO inherited).
They are claiming two things - first that "someone" put their code into Linux.
Second, they are claiming that IBM used "knowledge" of their OS to make Linux better.
I am not a lawyer, but the SCO-IBM contract, published on SCO's site appears to grant IBM the right to create derivative works, and use the knowledge any way they likely. It more or less says that explicitly. The only thing forbidden is cut and paste of code. Go to this link, and look at the top of page 2 especially http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
Article here: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10018 "Linux Coder puts SCO on notice". In short, the coder is annoyed they are distributing his code apparently out of compliance with GPL. My thoughts: This guy needs to get a lawyer and do this properly - i.e. a proper cease and desist, not an email. If we knew who it was, we could contribute to a legal fund to get him going.
From SCO's own site - I am not a lawyer - but it seems to clearly say - IBM appears to own any derivative works they create: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
I can't be bothered to look back but it's in the last SCO story. Paragraph 78 and 80 of their complaint basically try to say Linux is public domain except for the SCO parts - i.e. SCO owns Linux. Chris Sontag is quoted on perens.com SCO research page as saying their is no legitimate use of Linux, and SCO want to get their hands round it all (I'm paraphrasing but you get the point). Also on Perens' SCO research page are quotes or links to quotes, where SCO attack the GPL. Again consistent with this view. Over on CNet.com, Chris Sontag is quoted as saying Linux and SCO stuff can never be untangled, but he's working on a solution for people troubled by the problem... which seems to be a hint: royalties for everybody using Linux. As for MS inspiring a conspiracy, unlikely. More likely they would exploit it. According to an article on eweek.com about 2-3 weeks ago, MS weren't didn't pay up until after SCO contacted them about alleged IP infringements. (which presumably might be in their UNIX services package which includes tools to connect Windows to UNIX, and GNU stuff).
SCO is threatening to sue yet another company...
Chris Sontag says "It would be almost impossible to separate it [SCO code in Linux] out." - so I guess he wants everybody to pay SCO royalties.
Details at http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1017267.html
Also, more on the LinuxTag thing
SCO didn't stop repeating allegations in Germany
Google Translation: More from LinuxTag vs SCO
Don't have much time at the moment, but in case nobody has posted these yet:
NOTE: German Language
A German developer (who says that he didn't sign their NDA!) reports on SCO's "evidence". He says that he's seen 46 pages (not just 80 lines) but doesn't seem convinced.
In another article, Claybrook gives more details of how the story changed, and also remarks on some rather odd things about SCO's "evidence".
Don't have much time at the moment, but in case nobody has posted these yet:
NOTE: German Language
A German developer (who says that he didn't sign their NDA!) reports on SCO's "evidence". He says that he's seen 46 pages (not just 80 lines) but doesn't seem convinced.
In another article, Claybrook gives more details of how the story changed, and also remarks on some rather odd things about SCO's "evidence".
They should try searching in Utah
Stephen Michael Cohen
Yes you could just ask about Linux. But then if SCO say you'd have to pay them even if you buy Linux from somebody else, then it's own Linux vendors who'll be annoyed and might take action. The advantage of involving other products (applications, hardware, etc.) is if you don't purchase them because of related SCO fears about the underlying OS, then Dell, or Oracle or whoever legal teams might start to take more of an interest in SCO's activities.
I don't see anybody posted this link yet:
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1016020.html
Best Quote: "What SCO is arguing seems instead to be that it didn't know what it was packaging."
Not a lawyer, but I don't understand why people simply don't ask SCO if they are at risk of litigation by making new purchases of whatever.
1. If SCO replies you are at no risk, then presumably you are in the clear (at least can use their reply in court if SCO later turn round and do sue you).
2. If SCO doesn't reply, then presumably this will help limit any damage claims if they do sue you. You did the due diligence (especially if you send a couple of follow-ups and still don't get replies - keep good records!) - and it's at least partially their fault they didn't advise you.
3. If SCO reply yes they might sue you, then of course you want to talk to all vendors [and presumably their lawyers] affected - which includes hardware/database/applications/etc that you couldn't purchase, because of "uncertainty" about the OS platform. You might get indemnified by the vendor, and/or the vendor(s) may even take legal action against SCO especially if they see a lot of customers concerned about these issues.
Would a letter like this do?
Dear SCO,
Our company is considering purchasing a number of Dell/IBM/Other-Vendor computer systems with RedHat-Linux/Suse-Linux/AIX/Other-OS. We also expect to purchase application software to run on these platforms such as Oracle/SAP/Peoplesoft/DB2/Other-Product.
In view of the amount of press coverage regarding SCO's IP claims on UNIX and Linux, we would be interested in hearing whether, by proceeding with such purchases, we would be potentially risking litigation by SCO.
"We have also never contributed Unix source code to the Linux kernel," he said
i nux.html
There is a (partial?) list of SCO's contribution to the Linux kernel on SCO's own web site: http://www.sco.com/developers/community/contrib/l
Whether any of these contributions are "Unix source code" or other stuff, is not stated on that page.
Correct link is http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html . Paragraph 78 and 80 with emphasis added:-
78. The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux.
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
It didn't happen because BSD was defended by a university's law team.
l
Despite IBM's advocacy of Linux, the bottom line is a corporation, and their interest is in protecting IBM's shareholders investment. If SCO for example offer to settle with IBM for little or nothing, provided IBM accepts parts of SCO's complaint (paragraph 78 and 80), SCO effectively win against everybody except IBM.
Even if SCO think it unlikely that their claims will fly, they are trying. From their complaint (emphasis added)
78. The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux.
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
Link is http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.htm
Do you have a link corroborating that?
l
http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.htm
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
I think means para 78 and 80. Which read (emphasis added):-
l
78. The primary purpose of the GNU organization is to create free software based on valuable commercial software. The primary operating system advanced by GNU is Linux.
80. Any software licensed under the GPL (including Linux) must, by its terms, not be held proprietary or confidential, and may not be claimed by any party as a trade secret or copyright property.
Link is http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.htm