A few SCO notes

Things have been relatively quiet on the SCO front this week. The world is waiting for SCO to put up some evidence, and SCO management has not come up with any new ways to upset the Linux community. Still, a few things are worth mentioning.

SCO held a conference call on May 30 to explain its position. Executive summary: they claim to own the Unix copyrights, but it doesn't matter because the IBM suit is based on contracts. For more information see LWN's quick writeup or the complete transcript posted by Karsten Self.

LWN has decided not to request access to SCO's evidence under their non-disclosure agreement (which has been posted by the Linux Journal). Our ability to write about important topics, along with our continued ability to contribute to projects like the kernel, is more important than early access to SCO's exhibits. Besides, SCO's oft-repeated statements about the useful value of contracts as a vehicle for lawsuits suggests that they might be a good company to not sign contracts with.

LinuxTag's complaint against SCO in Germany, mentioned briefly here last week, has had some success: rather than put up its proof as demanded, SCO chose to shut down its German web site. The links to its "letter to Linux users" have also been removed from the SCOsource web page. It is a temporary situation, but, for now, SCO has chosen silence over backing up its claims.

News.com has tracked down a copy of the 1995 contract between SCO and Novell - the one which transferred (or didn't) Unix to SCO. Reading the contract seemingly does not make the situation any clearer; the contract looks like a muddy mess. Resolving who really owns the Unix copyrights looks like a job for the courts.

Finally, for some amusement, see Modern SCO Executive, an extreme exercise in fair use by Moen, Self, Gilbert, and Sullivan.

---

(Log in to post comments)