Re: [tlug] A SCO letter

[Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>]

On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 20:41, Marcus Metzler wrote:
> Edward Middleton writes:
>  > On Sun, 2003-05-18 at 18:31, Marcus Metzler wrote:
>  > > Edward Middleton writes:
>  > >  > I believe SCO is currently only looking at the Linux kernel (The IBM
>  > >  > case).  The bottom line is they are going after money, i.e. direct
>  > >  > copyright ("unauthorized derivative") infringement,because its easy to
>  > >  > prove.  As far as I can see SCO hasn't really said anything specifically
>  > >  > about GNU projects.
>  > > 
>  > > SCO hasn't said anything specifically about anything. If they are
>  > > really worried about their IP then they should have named the
>  > > infringements and sent a cease and desist. If they don't do that it isov
>  > > almost entrapment and should not hold in court.
>  > 
>  > >From what I understand they have taken IBM to court over the use of Unix
>  > code in the Linux kernel.  I imagine it is possible a judge could be
>  > convinced that some Linux kernel code was obfuscated Unix code.  They
>  > are also claiming that programmers who had access to the Unix code
>  > worked on Linux which might be enough to convince a Judge that code was
>  > stolen.   Their has been speculation that this is just a ploy to get IBM
>  > to buy SCO (as a cheaper alternative to a court case).  If this is the
>  > case then it would explain the FUD.
>  > 
>  > -- 
> 
> Like a said, no specifics. What could possibly be in the kernel which
> is copied one to one from another Unix system that would then still
> work. I don't think they have a patent case and it can't be copyright
> because that wouldn't work. If they say the code has been obfuscated
> than anybody could claim that their IP was stolen. If I write a
> program that implements the same algorithm you have of course similar code,
> but since you can't patent algorithms (o yeah only in the US, but
> their Unix patents are long gone) they probably are just creating FUD.

from looking at the SCO filing it appears they are claiming IBM used SCO
source code to improve Linux.  SCO claims this violated there "limited"
licencing.

http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html

	SCO (which, as used herein, includes its predecessor) has
	licensed UNIX and SCO/UNIX both to software vendors such as IBM
	and computer end-users such as McDonald˙s.  The UNIX and
	SCO/UNIX licenses granted to software vendors and end-users are
	limited licenses, which impose restrictions and obligations on
	the licensees designed to protect the economic value of UNIX and
	SCO/UNIX.


	4.              As set forth in more detail below, IBM has
	breached its own obligations to SCO, induced and encouraged
	others to breach their obligations to SCO, interfered with SCO˙s
	business, and engaged in unfair competition with SCO,


	86.          It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach UNIX
	performance standards for complete enterprise functionality
	without the misappropriation of UNIX code, methods or concepts
	to achieve such performance, and coordination by a larger
	developer, such as IBM.

the following is also interesting
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81191,00.html

        John Blau:
        Could this go on for months, even years?
        
        SCO's Chris Sontag:
        A complex legal issue like this could take years. However, we
        think we'll be able to have the issue expedited more quickly due
        to the damages that it is causing SCO. We also have contractual
        obligations to IBM related to our license of Unix System V
        source code, which IBM has used for AIX. We have the ability to
        withdraw or pull the AIX license on June 13, which should cause
        IBM to expedite this issue as well.
        

-- 
Edward Middleton <edwardmiddleton@example.com>