Notes from the SCO conference call

Posted Jun 6, 2003 18:00 UTC (Fri) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

Also, I'm almost sure that the code in question is not contained in the kernels distributed by SCO. Linux 2.4.13 was released on October 21, 2001. There has been a lot of development since then, including development done by IBM. Although the development is mostly done on the 2.5.x kernels, large pieces of code have been merged back to the 2.4.x series and may be used by the recent releases of Red Hat and other distributions.

Posted Jun 6, 2003 18:04 UTC (Fri) by mem (subscriber, #517) [Link]

AFAIUI, before they discovered the "leak" they were doing it unknowningly (they hadn't failed to protect the secrecy of their trade secrets because they didn't know they were redistributing them to the world under the GPL). _After_ the discovered the leak, they kept distributing said source to the world from their own servers and they did that knowingly and thus have failed to protect their trade secrets. AFAIU US intellectual property laws (IANAL, IANAUSR -- US resident) that means they can't sue people who's been using it (RedHat, VA Linux, LinuxCare, Montavista, whatever). Supposing SCO is right and something was copied over to Linux, that failure to protect their trade secret puts Linux off the hook, but it still doesn't solve the case for IBM.

For me there are two interesting points here and I hope the case gets to court to make them clear:

1. How is SCO going to prove that their code was copied over to Linux by IBM employees. I mean, SCO's lawyers can't be that stupid. If they started this thing with the intention of forcing IBM to buy them out, they *had* to consider the possibility of that *not* happening. They *have* to *have* something that will survive more than 30 seconds in court.
2. What's going to happen with clause 7. of the GPL:

   7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

   If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

   will it hold in court?