Did Buyukkokten write any of the code before he co-found Affinity Engines? He owns copyright to previous work unless they were transfered with correct documentation. He wrote social network code before helping form Affinity Engines.
Did he re-use his own code for Affinity Engines? He may have cause against Affinity Engines for infringing on his copyright.
Did Affinity Engines have a bullet-proof contract that made his code work for hire? As co-founder, this detail may not have been done to the level needed to convey copyright to prior code that was re-used.
Did he re-use concepts not code? He easily could have improved on his previous work, writing better cleaner code.
Does the parts of code that he re-used come from common algorisms? He may have made significant changes to the structure of his code while writing simple functions virtually the same. Common lines of code are not infringement when they impliment well known functions. His re-use of common algorisms might lead to the "bugs" that were found.
IANAL-- but i read Groklaw.
Re:Online mentions in IBM filing
on
SCOrched Earth
·
· Score: 1
The delay in challenging any SCO copyrighted code found in Linux lessens the impact of the infringment, adding that SCO published the code willingly, but sadly in ignorance, also lessens the validity of any claim.
The gap between PR announcements of copying and any filing of infringment will also be poorly viewed by the courts.
The court may take the view that the party that infringed must pay damages, but those users that are trusting the SCO GPL license are both held blameless and allowed to continue to use the software as SCO has granted a valid license (GPL) to certain customers after the discovery of SCO copyrighted material.
Copyright must be transfered by careful thoroughly documented process.
Publishing under the GPL does not transfer copyright, but does release the item published under GPL by the terms in GPL. SCO is expected to know what they are publishing word for word and will not have success pleading ignorance. SCO still owns the copyrights if they exist.
SCO cannot expect any compensation when users have a valid license GPL for the software that SCO published freely. The issue for a user is -is the license valid. Yes, the GPL is valid because SCO chose to use it. Copyright is not a user issue, a valid license is the issue. SCO still uses the GPL for Samba and GNU utilities and will not be able to invalidate it in court. Any Linux user has the expectation that the licensor (SCO) has a issued a license in good faith and will abide by the terms of the license.
SCO again is comparing apples (copyright) and oranges (License). The GPL does not transfer copyright, but the willing use of a license requires that the grantor of the license act in good faith.
SCO has the possibility of action against the initial publisher of SCO copyrighted material if it happened. SCO publishing under the GPL and waiting years to press the claim weakens that action considerably. SCO has yet to make any copyright claim against any one.
SCO published Linux with the full knowledge to the code contained in the Kernel. They willingly published the code under GPL.
The issue is that they decided to claim ownership of a portion of the source code after the fact. Most courts view the lack of dilgence as unfortunate, but not actionable. The fact that the claimed ownership is unproven also will way heavily against SCO. SCO has yet to press any copyright claims on any code in Linux in a court of law. How can you lose a copyright if you do not have clear ownership? If the issue comes down to keeping code confidential, SCO published the code.
It is rumoured that Sun actually got as SCO Unix drivers for 32bit Intel machines to add to Sun Unix for Intel. Sun may have had a real purpose for their purchase.
Novell- Santa Cruz Operation Agreement
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Novell sold UnixWare to real SCO. Sales Contract stated that Novell and real SCO compete and that Novell would not use retained SysV rights to complete with real SCO. Novell was expected to compete with other products as long as they are not primarily based on SysV. SCOX is again blowing smoke, but what do you expect from Smoking Crack Outfit.
Linus will get the opportunity to allege copyright infringement in deposition. In SCO's reality the GPL is invalid, so they are infringing on Linus' copyrights or in the real world, by issuing a separate license for any part of Linux, SCO voids the use of the GPL thus infringing on Linus' copyrights. It's best to have a lawyer available in that circumstance. One who can explain copyright law to SCO's attorneys, as they seem to have some difficulties in that area.
The Ibm questions for RMS and LT should open up some very interesting facets of Unix history. AT&T vs BSD, POSIX standards, BSD code in SysV, LKP questions, UNIX source in public domain, Caldera Linux history and more that SCO hoped would never be considered by the court.
SCO doesn't really want these two standard bearers of Open Source to set the court straight, which IBM will surely make happen.
Open Source is the life blood of these two men, they live and beleive it. They will both be well prepared and be SCO's worst nightmare come to life.
Rob shows how you can be a consistent waste of technology. I may have been attacked for posting my opinion, called a terrorist, but I have integrity which Rob seems to lack.
Rob Enderle cannot see value in having computer science being treated like other sciences, in an open scholarly manner. Open source is directly responsible for the state of computer technology today. It is such a shame that Rob is clearly indebted to the idea that corporations (Microsoft) built these technological marvels. Much of the innovation that advanced the science of computing has come from individuals who created and shared their findings freely. This open sharing of ideas has lead to the meteoric expansion of computing. Corporations in their drive for profit attempted to gain control of the science of computing. Open Source processes were in need of formal protections. GNU and the various open source licenses are the result of insuring that the open source innovations remain open for all.
Rob, here is my challenge: Do what you do without the benefit of a single open source product. Clue: Windows includes open source material, see zlib flaw. So does Unix. The Internet relies on open source innovations greatly. Report back if you can produce another article without using Open Source.
There is a fourth face to open source, the ignorant one, who denies that he needs open source, not knowing that he uses it every day.
The real advantage of open source is only realized after a second or third generation of use: The ability to customize systems to the minimum necessary hardware yet maintain administrative controls. Open system customization can end the waste of purchasing Windows XP Pro and a full MS Office suite when the users need access to e-mail and a word processor. After a governmental unit has experienced the freedom of open source, the proprietary software with its limited choices will pale in comparison.
Once open source has been established as a viable option, you should see an energetic bidding process among a growth industry of companies that can build on the open source structure. This revitalized bidding should lead to decreased costs and increased options.
Personally, I work in an organization where we have found the proprietary document formats fall short of the needs to the organization at times. We have to spend extra effort on a daily basis to force documents into an open standard. The open standards that allow universal access to documents is essential to a government that wants to communicate to every citizen. Any movement that calls for adherence to open standards is in the best interests of the citizenry. The cost of access by the private individual is reduced by eliminating expensive proprietary software on their personal systems.
All government units should support open standards at a minimum. The maturity and availability of open source products can create a better environment for both the government employees and the citizenry. Monies spent on open source by the government will return more and better open source products for citizens.
Before you trash SCO and its cast of characters as totally worthless, Remember the value that they are adding daily to the technology community on a daily basis.
Go ahead, think about it for a minute or two.
Stumped? You cannot see a redeeming value it SCO continued existance?
This is the best tech soap opera/drama/comedy since Al Gore invented the internet. It has staying power, from a summer replacement series, now held over into the Fall line up. A great cast of characters. We could enjoy a full blow trial or two during next season. The third season could be taken up by SEC actions and a fourth season can have those pesty criminal trials.
I really think that Darl (Don't you love that stage name) should get some real recogition for his individual contribution. It must take special talent to play the serious straight man in this screw-ball comedy.
Mark Heise also deserves special notice for the inventative attack on GPL. Who would have thought an attorney would come up with the most comical moment in the entire season?
We should have several seasons of twists and turns if the producers of the SCO Comedy Group can avoid bankruptcy.
I personally hope it lasts until "Doctor Who" returns to PBS. Hey, Darl could play the new Doctor Who!
It appears that Caldera cut Lineo loose before MontaVista came into being. Darn Shame too, It would have been some fun to track copying back to Caldera.
But this protection is not covered by DMCA. Read the ACT: `Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems `(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Define effectively:
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
No, you can gain access to work without any of the above. The DMCA covers processes that are required to access the copyrighted work. SunnComm's process is not required to access the copyrighted material. SunnComm's process is optional. Therefore it is ineffective and not protected by DMCA.
But this protection is not covered by DMCA. Read the ACT: `Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems `(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Define effectively:
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
No, you can gain access to work without any of the above. The DMCA covers processes that are required to access the copyrighted work. SunnComm's process is not required to access the copyrighted material. SunnComm's process is optional. Therefore it is ineffective and not protected by DMCA.
But this protection is not covered by DMCA. Read the ACT: `Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems `(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Define effectively:
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
No, you can gain access to work without any of the above. The DMCA covers processes that are required to access the copyrighted work. SunnComm's process is not required to access the copyrighted material. SunnComm's process is optional. Therefore it is ineffective and not protected by DMCA.
Suse has the cross licensing agreement with SCO via UnitedLinux. That cross licensing may end up as a back up legal defense if both Red Hat and IBM both lose in court. Suse may have the right to open source any SCO code by this cross licensing.
Custom shock absorber cover with vents and easy close Velcro fasteners: notebook remains in cover for use. Openings for ports, drives and battery
Battery charging stations in each class room. Extra batteries- three per unit per day
Spare units 10% of total purchase per school. Expect damages theft etc.
Server and storage capacity to hold document back-up, Script or software to make back-up simple
Second, plan to hire an administrator / technician -minimum admin school students GET REAL!
State should hire architect for system. System architect would design network basics and train local or roving administrators.
Have educational plans pre-build to maximize student impact -go beyond simple user instruction
Install tracking software either type that reports IP of stolen system or GPS
Which OS to choice? Who foots the bill? Linux or Mac requires different experience that Windows. A competent architect can structure any of the OS choices into stable secure system.
Windows security software can add considerable cost. Linux or Mac can be more cost effective with security.
When reviewing the SCO vs. Open Source situation, several elements need to be kept clear. Here are some simple rules:
1. Classify SCO news as rhetoric or legal. Most press is rhetoric only, very little actual changes to legal situation.
a. If rhetoric, compare against previous statements to see if new claim or re-hash / forking of previous rhetoric.
b. If re-hash / forking, compare if clarifies previous rhetoric or obfuscates rhetoric on a subject.
2. If legal, ask if purpose is to resolve dispute or lengthen proceedings.
a. If lengthens proceedings, determine if validity vs. delay factor.
SCO had only nebulous contract claims to derivative works on the thinnest of definitions in its lawsuit. SCO repeatedly blathers on and on over other issues that it has not yet added to the litigation. IBM raised the level of litigation with copyright and patent issues. IBM also raised the General Public License issue.
SCO has a long history of contentious statements about the GPL while continuing to use it to this very day. SCO showed a detailed knowledge of the GPL. SCO based their IPO on the GPL. SCO released several of their applications under the GPL. SCO still ships a large amount of GPL applications to improve the usability of their UNIX product. SCO cannot separate the validity of the GPL when legally disputing Linux and releasing Samba or any of several GNU applications. SCO cannot re-write their history before a court. Their SEC filings are public record, with the GPL included. It seems impossible for SCO to repudiate the GPL given they still have it as a core part of their business strategy. The actual filing of any attempt to invalidate the GPL would place SCO in direct conflict with all the filings that they made to the SEC. Even a win on a contractual basis would not invalidate the GPL, and SCO cannot hope to mount an effective legal challenge against the GPL.
SCO will attempt to stay in a high public profile and convert that into stock value for as long as they can. Possibly a buyout offer will come in to end the charade.
There were three companies involved in Project Montetey: Santa Cruz Operation, IBM and Sequent. I suspect that IBM found little of value in what SCO had to offer and real value in Sequent code. IBM bought Sequent, not SCO. Sco had given IBM good press about AIX 5L after the end of the project. SCO Group was not involved with Project Monterey. Caldera was involved in Trillian, Liunx for the Itatium with IBM.
The people that decided to take this foolish course should live to suffer a long time. Some civil suits should empty their pockets and then criminal charges of fraud etc. should send them up the river. Nukes are so messy!
Are copyright violations compensated on the quanitity distributed? We all need to pay a visit to a SCO FTP server for a copy of the kernel. Just a small thank you for IBM!
After toying with the lightweight contender for several rounds, The Undisputed HeavyWeight Champion unleashes a viscious couter, SCO goes down! 1, 2, 3, 4,....
Didn't I read that SRV4 was a collaboration between AT&T and SUN? The silly question is how much right to the source code AT&T shared with Sun and if SCO has any idea that Sun enhanced AT&T Unix, given their dim recollection of Unix History? The crux of this is Sun is still distributing Linux. Does Sun have the right to do as they please with the Unix/Solaris source code? Sun could be undercutting SCO on the sly. Goodness Knows, they would not intentionally help IBM. Sun would be sitting pretty if they were able to invalidate SCO arguments.
HP has the situation nailed. Even if SCO wins, you cannot litigate a second time for the same event. IANAL Win or lose, IBM will take the brunt of the SCO legal challenge. It is very unlikely that SCO would be able to sue Linux users after IBM lawsuit is finally done. This is pure publicity. There is minimal danger that HP would ever spend a cent on any lawsuit.
Extra two cents:
Lindows claims Caldera contractually gave Lindows the right to use Caldera source in their Linux distribution. That GPL license that LIndows uses would validate the continued distribution of Linux with SCO/Caldera IP if Lindows is within the contractual rights that Caldera granted it.
Sun has unique agreement with AT&T, having co-developed SRV4. They distribute Linux too. This also could invalidate much of SCO Claims
Slashdot Mirror
Did Buyukkokten write any of the code before he co-found Affinity Engines? He owns copyright to previous work unless they were transfered with correct documentation. He wrote social network code before helping form Affinity Engines.
Did he re-use his own code for Affinity Engines? He may have cause against Affinity Engines for infringing on his copyright.
Did Affinity Engines have a bullet-proof contract that made his code work for hire? As co-founder, this detail may not have been done to the level needed to convey copyright to prior code that was re-used.
Did he re-use concepts not code? He easily could have improved on his previous work, writing better cleaner code.
Does the parts of code that he re-used come from common algorisms? He may have made significant changes to the structure of his code while writing simple functions virtually the same. Common lines of code are not infringement when they impliment well known functions.
His re-use of common algorisms might lead to the "bugs" that were found.
IANAL-- but i read Groklaw.
The delay in challenging any SCO copyrighted code found in Linux lessens the impact of the infringment, adding that SCO published the code willingly, but sadly in ignorance, also lessens the validity of any claim.
The gap between PR announcements of copying and any filing of infringment will also be poorly viewed by the courts.
The court may take the view that the party that infringed must pay damages, but those users that are trusting the SCO GPL license are both held blameless and allowed to continue to use the software as SCO has granted a valid license (GPL) to certain customers after the discovery of SCO copyrighted material.
Copyright must be transfered by careful thoroughly documented process.
Publishing under the GPL does not transfer copyright, but does release the item published under GPL by the terms in GPL. SCO is expected to know what they are publishing word for word and will not have success pleading ignorance. SCO still owns the copyrights if they exist.
SCO cannot expect any compensation when users have a valid license GPL for the software that SCO published freely. The issue for a user is -is the license valid. Yes, the GPL is valid because SCO chose to use it. Copyright is not a user issue, a valid license is the issue. SCO still uses the GPL for Samba and GNU utilities and will not be able to invalidate it in court. Any Linux user has the expectation that the licensor (SCO) has a issued a license in good faith and will abide by the terms of the license.
SCO again is comparing apples (copyright) and oranges (License). The GPL does not transfer copyright, but the willing use of a license requires that the grantor of the license act in good faith.
SCO has the possibility of action against the initial publisher of SCO copyrighted material if it happened. SCO publishing under the GPL and waiting years to press the claim weakens that action considerably. SCO has yet to make any copyright claim against any one.
SCO published Linux with the full knowledge to the code contained in the Kernel. They willingly published the code under GPL.
The issue is that they decided to claim ownership of a portion of the source code after the fact. Most courts view the lack of dilgence as unfortunate, but not actionable. The fact that the claimed ownership is unproven also will way heavily against SCO. SCO has yet to press any copyright claims on any code in Linux in a court of law. How can you lose a copyright if you do not have clear ownership? If the issue comes down to keeping code confidential, SCO published the code.
It is rumoured that Sun actually got as SCO Unix drivers for 32bit Intel machines to add to Sun Unix for Intel. Sun may have had a real purpose for their purchase.
Novell sold UnixWare to real SCO. Sales Contract stated that Novell and real SCO compete and that Novell would not use retained SysV rights to complete with real SCO. Novell was expected to compete with other products as long as they are not primarily based on SysV. SCOX is again blowing smoke, but what do you expect from Smoking Crack Outfit.
Linus will get the opportunity to allege copyright infringement in deposition. In SCO's reality the GPL is invalid, so they are infringing on Linus' copyrights or in the real world, by issuing a separate license for any part of Linux, SCO voids the use of the GPL thus infringing on Linus' copyrights. It's best to have a lawyer available in that circumstance. One who can explain copyright law to SCO's attorneys, as they seem to have some difficulties in that area.
The Ibm questions for RMS and LT should open up some very interesting facets of Unix history. AT&T vs BSD, POSIX standards, BSD code in SysV, LKP questions, UNIX source in public domain, Caldera Linux history and more that SCO hoped would never be considered by the court.
SCO doesn't really want these two standard bearers of Open Source to set the court straight, which IBM will surely make happen.
Open Source is the life blood of these two men, they live and beleive it. They will both be well prepared and be SCO's worst nightmare come to life.
Rob shows how you can be a consistent waste of technology. I may have been attacked for posting my opinion, called a terrorist, but I have integrity which Rob seems to lack.
Rob Enderle cannot see value in having computer science being treated like other sciences, in an open scholarly manner. Open source is directly responsible for the state of computer technology today. It is such a shame that Rob is clearly indebted to the idea that corporations (Microsoft) built these technological marvels. Much of the innovation that advanced the science of computing has come from individuals who created and shared their findings freely. This open sharing of ideas has lead to the meteoric expansion of computing. Corporations in their drive for profit attempted to gain control of the science of computing. Open Source processes were in need of formal protections. GNU and the various open source licenses are the result of insuring that the open source innovations remain open for all.
Rob, here is my challenge: Do what you do without the benefit of a single open source product. Clue: Windows includes open source material, see zlib flaw. So does Unix. The Internet relies on open source innovations greatly. Report back if you can produce another article without using Open Source.
There is a fourth face to open source, the ignorant one, who denies that he needs open source, not knowing that he uses it every day.
The real advantage of open source is only realized after a second or third generation of use: The ability to customize systems to the minimum necessary hardware yet maintain administrative controls. Open system customization can end the waste of purchasing Windows XP Pro and a full MS Office suite when the users need access to e-mail and a word processor. After a governmental unit has experienced the freedom of open source, the proprietary software with its limited choices will pale in comparison.
Once open source has been established as a viable option, you should see an energetic bidding process among a growth industry of companies that can build on the open source structure. This revitalized bidding should lead to decreased costs and increased options.
Personally, I work in an organization where we have found the proprietary document formats fall short of the needs to the organization at times. We have to spend extra effort on a daily basis to force documents into an open standard. The open standards that allow universal access to documents is essential to a government that wants to communicate to every citizen. Any movement that calls for adherence to open standards is in the best interests of the citizenry. The cost of access by the private individual is reduced by eliminating expensive proprietary software on their personal systems.
All government units should support open standards at a minimum. The maturity and availability of open source products can create a better environment for both the government employees and the citizenry. Monies spent on open source by the government will return more and better open source products for citizens.
Before you trash SCO and its cast of characters as totally worthless, Remember the value that they are adding daily to the technology community on a daily basis.
Go ahead, think about it for a minute or two.
Stumped? You cannot see a redeeming value it SCO continued existance?
This is the best tech soap opera/drama/comedy since Al Gore invented the internet. It has staying power, from a summer replacement series, now held over into the Fall line up. A great cast of characters. We could enjoy a full blow trial or two during next season. The third season could be taken up by SEC actions and a fourth season can have those pesty criminal trials.
I really think that Darl (Don't you love that stage name) should get some real recogition for his individual contribution. It must take special talent to play the serious straight man in this screw-ball comedy.
Mark Heise also deserves special notice for the inventative attack on GPL. Who would have thought an attorney would come up with the most comical moment in the entire season?
We should have several seasons of twists and turns if the producers of the SCO Comedy Group can avoid bankruptcy.
I personally hope it lasts until "Doctor Who" returns to PBS. Hey, Darl could play the new Doctor Who!
It appears that Caldera cut Lineo loose before MontaVista came into being. Darn Shame too, It would have been some fun to track copying back to Caldera.
The key words are requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner
Duh, you can access without authority of owner. Neither effective or required or any extra process.
This copy protection is not up DMCA standard.
But this protection is not covered by DMCA.
Read the ACT:
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Define effectively:
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
No, you can gain access to work without any of the above. The DMCA covers processes that are required to access the copyrighted work. SunnComm's process is not required to access the copyrighted material. SunnComm's process is optional. Therefore it is ineffective and not protected by DMCA.
But this protection is not covered by DMCA.
Read the ACT:
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Define effectively:
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
No, you can gain access to work without any of the above. The DMCA covers processes that are required to access the copyrighted work. SunnComm's process is not required to access the copyrighted material. SunnComm's process is optional. Therefore it is ineffective and not protected by DMCA.
But this protection is not covered by DMCA.
Read the ACT:
`Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Define effectively:
`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
No, you can gain access to work without any of the above. The DMCA covers processes that are required to access the copyrighted work. SunnComm's process is not required to access the copyrighted material. SunnComm's process is optional. Therefore it is ineffective and not protected by DMCA.
Suse has the cross licensing agreement with SCO via UnitedLinux. That cross licensing may end up as a back up legal defense if both Red Hat and IBM both lose in court. Suse may have the right to open source any SCO code by this cross licensing.
First, you need to cover the basics:
Custom shock absorber cover with vents and easy close Velcro fasteners: notebook remains in cover for use. Openings for ports, drives and battery
Battery charging stations in each class room. Extra batteries- three per unit per day
Spare units 10% of total purchase per school. Expect damages theft etc.
Server and storage capacity to hold document back-up, Script or software to make back-up simple
Second, plan to hire an administrator / technician -minimum admin school students GET REAL!
State should hire architect for system. System architect would design network basics and train local or roving administrators.
Have educational plans pre-build to maximize student impact -go beyond simple user instruction
Install tracking software either type that reports IP of stolen system or GPS
Which OS to choice? Who foots the bill? Linux or Mac requires different experience that Windows. A competent architect can structure any of the OS choices into stable secure system.
Windows security software can add considerable cost. Linux or Mac can be more cost effective with security.
When reviewing the SCO vs. Open Source situation, several elements need to be kept clear. Here are some simple rules:
1. Classify SCO news as rhetoric or legal. Most press is rhetoric only, very little actual changes to legal situation.
a. If rhetoric, compare against previous statements to see if new claim or re-hash / forking of previous rhetoric.
b. If re-hash / forking, compare if clarifies previous rhetoric or obfuscates rhetoric on a subject.
2. If legal, ask if purpose is to resolve dispute or lengthen proceedings.
a. If lengthens proceedings, determine if validity vs. delay factor.
SCO had only nebulous contract claims to derivative works on the thinnest of definitions in its lawsuit. SCO repeatedly blathers on and on over other issues that it has not yet added to the litigation. IBM raised the level of litigation with copyright and patent issues. IBM also raised the General Public License issue.
SCO has a long history of contentious statements about the GPL while continuing to use it to this very day. SCO showed a detailed knowledge of the GPL. SCO based their IPO on the GPL. SCO released several of their applications under the GPL. SCO still ships a large amount of GPL applications to improve the usability of their UNIX product. SCO cannot separate the validity of the GPL when legally disputing Linux and releasing Samba or any of several GNU applications. SCO cannot re-write their history before a court. Their SEC filings are public record, with the GPL included. It seems impossible for SCO to repudiate the GPL given they still have it as a core part of their business strategy. The actual filing of any attempt to invalidate the GPL would place SCO in direct conflict with all the filings that they made to the SEC. Even a win on a contractual basis would not invalidate the GPL, and SCO cannot hope to mount an effective legal challenge against the GPL.
SCO will attempt to stay in a high public profile and convert that into stock value for as long as they can. Possibly a buyout offer will come in to end the charade.
There were three companies involved in Project Montetey: Santa Cruz Operation, IBM and Sequent. I suspect that IBM found little of value in what SCO had to offer and real value in Sequent code. IBM bought Sequent, not SCO. Sco had given IBM good press about AIX 5L after the end of the project. SCO Group was not involved with Project Monterey. Caldera was involved in Trillian, Liunx for the Itatium with IBM.
The people that decided to take this foolish course should live to suffer a long time. Some civil suits should empty their pockets and then criminal charges of fraud etc. should send them up the river. Nukes are so messy!
Are copyright violations compensated on the quanitity distributed? We all need to pay a visit to a SCO FTP server for a copy of the kernel. Just a small thank you for IBM!
After toying with the lightweight contender for several rounds, The Undisputed HeavyWeight Champion unleashes a viscious couter, SCO goes down! 1, 2, 3, 4, ....
Didn't I read that SRV4 was a collaboration between AT&T and SUN? The silly question is how much right to the source code AT&T shared with Sun and if SCO has any idea that Sun enhanced AT&T Unix, given their dim recollection of Unix History? The crux of this is Sun is still distributing Linux. Does Sun have the right to do as they please with the Unix/Solaris source code? Sun could be undercutting SCO on the sly. Goodness Knows, they would not intentionally help IBM. Sun would be sitting pretty if they were able to invalidate SCO arguments.
HP has the situation nailed. Even if SCO wins, you cannot litigate a second time for the same event. IANAL Win or lose, IBM will take the brunt of the SCO legal challenge. It is very unlikely that SCO would be able to sue Linux users after IBM lawsuit is finally done. This is pure publicity. There is minimal danger that HP would ever spend a cent on any lawsuit.
Extra two cents:
Lindows claims Caldera contractually gave Lindows the right to use Caldera source in their Linux distribution. That GPL license that LIndows uses would validate the continued distribution of Linux with SCO/Caldera IP if Lindows is within the contractual rights that Caldera granted it.
Sun has unique agreement with AT&T, having co-developed SRV4. They distribute Linux too. This also could invalidate much of SCO Claims