SCO's conference call [LWN.net]

Your editor tuned into the SCO conference call today, just to see what the official line would be. The answer is somewhat unsurprising: more of the same. The key points from the call were:

SCO claims to own the Unix copyrights and believes that Novell is "trying to curry favor with the Linux community" by pressing its claims. SCO believes it will prevail on this point.
That notwithstanding, SCO went to considerable lengths to reiterate its point that the IBM suit is not based on copyrights or patents - it is a breach of contract suit. They repeated this often enough that one might be forgiven for wondering how confident they really are in their copyright claims.
"Three independent groups" found Unix code which had been copied into the Linux kernel, they say.
SCO will start showing code ("hundreds of lines") next week to people who have signed non-disclosure agreements. I am, frankly, unsure of whether I should try to get in on this; an NDA could get in the way of future kernel and book work.
One question touched on Caldera's (previous) mission to bring Unix and Linux together and SCO/Caldera's possible responsibility for disclosures. No real answer of use.

In other words, not much that was new. We will have to wait to see how this all unfolds.

(Log in to post comments)

SCO's conference call

Posted May 30, 2003 22:11 UTC (Fri) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link]

"At this point I feel nasty. I don't just want the SCO threat to go away. I want SCO to come out looking really, really, really stupid."

You sir are far kinder than I. With all of the misbehavior, and the extremity of ingratitude of SCO / Caldera in regards to Linux (Just how DID Caldera get the money to buy SCO in the first place? Oh yeah, a hot Linux IPO a few years back). I don't just want the SCO threat to go away either. I want to see them crash their company into the flaming wreckage it is heading for. In the aftermath of this debacle I suspect that those at the helm of SCO, particularly Chris Sontag will have a fun time finding any sort of employment beyond that which requires one to ask "Would you like some fries with that burger sir?" I am actually wondering if what the SCO folks are doing is illegal, perhaps some criminal indictments are due... Of course after the Enron folks and all those guys.

SCO's conference call

Posted May 30, 2003 23:24 UTC (Fri) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link]

Chris Sontag will have a fun time finding any sort of employment beyond that which requires one to ask "Would you like some fries with that burger sir?"

Go easy on the kids in burger land. They may not be compensated like a SCO exec, but at least they're making a honest living.

And Jon, as much as I'd enjoy a report on SCO's technical claims, I'd recommend against signing anything with them:

Whatever you find, you'd likely not be able to write about thanks to the NDA. In fact, it may inhibit your ability to legally report on anything SCO related.
I see the excitement (this is about the closest thing a Linux Journalist can find to war reporting) but it's not worth the risk.

A rundown on the NDA might be entertaining.

SCO's conference call

Posted May 31, 2003 2:41 UTC (Sat) by busterb (subscriber, #560) [Link]

Working in the fast-food industry would probably give ol' Chris too much satisfaction. After all, isn't McDonalds one of SCO's biggest customers?

SCO's conference call

Posted May 31, 2003 22:31 UTC (Sat) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link]

Working in the fast-food industry would probably give ol' Chris too much
satisfaction. After all, isn't McDonalds one of SCO's biggest customers? ..

Ok Then hows about an .........- house mechanic (9 dit's and a dah) when s is
= to ... mind you there could be a certain amount of job satisfaction in that as
well i spose if he was that way inclined . I know hows about bankrupt and
trampled under foot now there's tasty for you .

Hundreds of lines?

Posted May 31, 2003 1:06 UTC (Sat) by dmomara (guest, #11454) [Link]

182 lines in 3 files? (Deja'vu all over again.)

Lord emperor Fud, sole owner and protector of the one true XXXX operating system seems not so certain as to the "baselessness" of Novel's claims in a matter of a few hours subsequent to the press release announcement of this telefudference. Sighs of relief were heard on realization that he may not be able to understand a contract when he has it in his hands. (In light of the published corporate policy:)

"Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with."
<source: sco press release>

(Babelfish translation:)
"Any contract you sign with us is to be construed as a means by which tortuous action will be taken against you."

In any event since they appear to be in the process of sueing everyone else in the world, they appear to want a piece of Novell too.

Certainly with his deep knowledge and understanding of XXXX history and that of the amalgam at the tiller of which his firm hand rests, the Almighty and Puissant Litigator Exemplar would be absolutely certain that none of the offending (offensive? odious? noxious?) lines of code could have appeared at some time like:

"1999 SCO launches numerous Open Source initiatives: 1) Offers free Open Source applications and tools to SCO customers; 2) Extends Professional Services to include audits and deployment consultation for customers interested in installing Linux and Open Source technologies; 3) Invests in LinuxMall.com, the leading portal for Linux-related products and services; 4) Enters strategic agreement with TurboLinux to develop services for TurboLinux's TurboCluster Server and provide Linux Professional Services for TurboLinux customers." <source: sco.com "history of sco">

or:

"2001 On May 7, Caldera Systems completes the acquisition of SCO's Server Software and Professional Services Divisions, becoming Caldera International (Caldera) and providing the world's largest Linux/UNIX channel."

At any rate, the Mighty Protector will certainly find out the offender and the punishment will cause all to click their tongues and whistle. Perhaps the Omniscient and Benevolent one will be so clever as to trick the silly miscreant into some demented and devastating lawsuit against one of the most powerful and sophisticated information technology companies on the planet? Perhaps the foolish thieves would be so silly in the process as to send to the wealthiest and most influential business leaders in the world threatening letters, only to find later that the source of their difficulties are themselves? We can only wait and see.

As another surprise no mention was made of a rumored move to once again change the corporate name, this time to Seppuku Technologies.

(Obligatory .sig for the duration)

UNIX is a regestered trademark of the Open Group in the United States and other countries.

Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds, a really nice guy.

Hundreds of lines?

Posted May 31, 2003 4:32 UTC (Sat) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link]

May I suggest adding:

SCO delenda est!

Senator Cato added the line "And Carthage should be destroyed" at the end of every address he gave, regardless the subject. It worked, the Romans did it and Carthage has been a byword ever since. What a nice fate for SCO and its leadership...

Hundreds of lines?

Posted May 31, 2003 8:44 UTC (Sat) by zutman (guest, #5077) [Link]

Senator Cato was probably the first person in history
who used a signature.

Z.

--
Ceterum censeo SCO delenda est.

Hundreds of lines?

Posted May 31, 2003 13:54 UTC (Sat) by dmomara (guest, #11454) [Link]

I've slept and may be a little more coherent now...

Coherent,,,hehheh,,,get it?,,,Coherent,,,nevermind.

My crystal ball is clouded and I'm certainly not a lawyer but I'll predict the following:

1.) If SCO is silly enough to pursue any claims against Novell they may think appropriate, they are most likely to learn that "you cannot _retain_ what you do not _have_."

2.) Any statements of the sort "shall _RE_tain exclusive ownership rights of the XXXX operating system, XXXWare, and all copyrights, patents and developments pertaining thereunto, etc.blahblahblah" will not be considered to indicate that they will _OB_tain anything else, or that anything else is to be conferred onto them.

Can a battleship be sucked down in the vortex left by a sinking rowboat? I don't know.

Inspite of the censorship marks, the following:

(Obligatory .sig for the duration)
UNIX is a regestered trademark of the Open Group in the United States and other countries.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds, a really nice guy.
Cetrum censo SCO delenda est.
(50 line warlord littered with tab damaged barfics currently under review for possible SCO contract violations.)

Delenda

Posted Jun 1, 2003 9:44 UTC (Sun) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]

Happy to oblige ... And I didn't just register this user ID, so consider it official!

Richard
--
SCO delenda est

SCO-IBM Vs Timeline Inc-Microsoft : Better off with the GPL

Posted May 31, 2003 5:39 UTC (Sat) by NZheretic (guest, #409) [Link]

If you are concerned over the treat of lawsuits over intellectual property then you are actually in a better legal position using GPL'ed Linux than using Microsoft's products.

While SCO has yet to provide any publicly available substantial evidence in their case against IBM and Linux, Timeline Inc has already won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft in another contract dispute.

Unlike companies like Oracle Corporation and others, Microsoft chose a cheaper option when licensing Timeline Inc's Data base technology. That license puts developers and users of Microsoft SQL Server,Office and other Microsoft product at risk of being sued by Timeline Inc for violation of Timeline Inc patents.

Microsoft's products do not provide users and developers an absolute safe haven from the threat from lawsuits based on violations of intellectual property. Microsoft's EULA provide the developer and end user with no protection against threat from current or future intellectual property lawsuits.

However, since the SCO Group has knowingly sold and distributed the GPL licensed Linux kernel and other components, it must by the terms of the GPL license, provide all those who receive the code from them an implicit license to use any intellectual property, patents or trade secrets which SCO owns and is used by the GPL'ed source code. That implicit license to that SCO intellectual property is also granted to anybody who subsequently receives the GPL source.

The GPL only grants the right, for reasons of intellectual property infringement or contractual obligations, to stop distributing the GPL'e binaries and source code if the conditions are imposed upon you by a third party. Since SCO claims ownership the intellectual property in question, it must grant all subsequent recipients of the GPL licensed source code SCO has distributed and any GPL'ed derivative, the same implicit licence and right to SCO's intellectual property the code imposes upon.

SCO has acknowledged deals with Suse and Lindows to distribute SCO's intellectual property in GPL'ed Linux, but the GPL license does not grant anyone or any organization the right to append extra terms and conditions upon the recipients of the GPL licensed source code.

It is very easy to effectively fold the current development branches of the Linux kernel and any other GPL'ed code back into SCO's distributed GPL'ed sources. This would grant the same implicit license for the infringed SCO intellectual property to the all the current development.

You are in a better legal position using the GPL'ed Linux platform and other GPL'ed software, than you are using Microsoft's or any other closed source software.

Code simularity is not a breach of contract.

Posted May 31, 2003 8:19 UTC (Sat) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link]

If two peices of software contain the same lines of code, there are a number of possibilities.
- The code can be written twice, if the piece of software is millions of lines of code and the number of corresponding lines are in the ordr of tens to hundreds this is a real possibility.
- The code can have a common source, e.g. information of hardware vendors etc.
- the code can be copied from A to B
- the code can be copied from B to A

In the SCO case we see there are strict, well enforced mechanisms to avoid copying from SCO based code to GPL. We see there is no mechanism to avoid copying from GPL to SCO. In fact we have seen that a lot of SCO's proprietary code is vulnerable for security problems in GPL code. Just visit CERT archives to check.

For SCO's claim it is essential to prove the orgin of the code and to prove the path of code to GPL being a breach of contract. Even if there has been an illegal transfer of code orginating from SCO to GPL, it will be almost impossible to prove. Furthermore, for the claim to be substantial, it must be proven that the lines of code really made a substantial contribution to the value of the GPL code. As Linux has been better on most important area's than System V for a very long time, this will be hard to prove.

The factor "independent groups" is without value. It is impossible to have knowledge of System V code orgin, or even System V code, for an independent expert. After signing the required NDA, one is no longer an independent expert, as from then only contributions to System V code, or advices for System V code are possible.

Derived work?

Posted May 31, 2003 17:30 UTC (Sat) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link]

In the conference call several times the term "derived works" is used.
To understand this one should know the way source licenses in the old days worked. Sometimes in the contract there was a clause that the contractant gave the owner of the source some rights on modifications and enhancements made by the contractant.
The extent of these rights depends on the text of the license contract.
This could give SCO some rights on developments made by IBM and used in conjunction with System V code. These developments are called "derived works".
A twisted mind could say the JFS IBM contributed to Linux is a "derived work". The mind should be very twisted, as the Linux JFS is a port from the OS2 JFS http://oss.software.ibm.com/developer/opensource/jfs/project/pub/faq.txt and SCO is still promoting JFS as "JFS (Journaled File System Developed by IBM)" in their oct 2002 document https://www.caldera.com/developers/training/unitedlinux/Developer_web_2B-3.ppt

If the claim includes "derived works" and even the JFS, this would be a strong promotion for GPL software. The automatic transfer of rights on software you write looks to me a form of slavery. A 1B SCO claim on IBM for software written by IBM would be a complete twisted interpretation of the term "Intellectual Property"

Lawyers out of control

Posted Jun 1, 2003 5:50 UTC (Sun) by ttraub (guest, #2950) [Link]

This is another example of the American legal system run amuck. A superstar lawyer is hired by a sleazy holding company which purchased some sort of licensing agreement to someone else's code; they put their slimy heads together and come up with one of the most outrageous, disruptive, and destructive lawsuits in recent history.

Leaving aside the questionable basis of the lawsuit--clearly, lawyer Boiyes is a technical lightweight who got dollar signs in his eyes when McBride explained the scope of his twisted scheme--it is so at odds with everything the Unix community has stood for that it's laughable. Unix has always been an open, sharing environment; Linux is the natural inheritor of the mantle (if not the actual source code) and great achievements have been made because of this.

SCO's lawyers and executives have to be in this for a very short term gain. For, after they have destroyed Linux, it will be SCO Unix versus Microsoft from here on in. Who'd place a nickel on SCO to win that contest? Absolutely nobody. Linux can only beat Microsoft because of GPL, and by suing GPL into oblivion SCO will kill MS's biggest competitor.

I sincerely hope SCO is sued into the ground by as many parties as possible, and that Mr. McBride and Mr. Boiyes are dealt the ignominious defeat they so richly deserve. This entire sorry affair is one big lesson in the superiority of open source licensing over closed source IP.