| |||||||||||
The amended SCO complaintThe amended SCO complaintPosted Jun 18, 2003 11:56 UTC (Wed) by ssharkey (subscriber, #4451)Parent article: The amended SCO complaint After reading the entire amended complaint, it appears that one of the key assumptions that SCO is making is that any UNIX program, of whatever origin, is by definition a derivative work, simply because it was written to run on Unix. This is apparently the basis of their claims that allow them to claim rights over code that has not one line of SCO/ATT origin, at least according to the complaint. Apparently, SCO therefore believes that any UNIX-related technology which was shipped with a commercial UNIX license has become incorporated into their body of owned code -- I'm sure that will raise a few eyebrows around the business world. Apparently LWN's comment "All your base are belong to us" isn't very far off the mark... Unfortunately, the term derivative work has a very specific legal meaning, one which includes the requirement that it contain code from the original program, in substantial and non-trivial amounts. In other words, a derivative program is one that has a common ancestor in the protected work. It's not clear that the functions which IBM has made available to Linux fall into that category. -Scott
(Log in to post comments)
The amended SCO complaint Posted Jun 18, 2003 14:10 UTC (Wed) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I don't know how the legal wrangling ended up here, but you may not know this: IBM tried the same thing. At one time, on their 360 platform, a completed compile and link and catalog would result in a message like: *** PHASE ABCPROG1 CATALOG IS SYS1.GODLIB *** The term "phase" was used to describe exactly the kind of baloney mentioned in this previous message: IBM was leading people to believe that if you wrote, compiled, and linked, *any* 360 program of any kind, it automagically became their property. And this was true even if the program bindings were weak or late. I wonder--how old are these Sontag and McBride people? Did they have parents who trained them properly at home? Somehow I doubt it. I also think the same way about the buttholes at IBM who tried that trick in the 1960's and 1970's. Now that I think about it, remember the H. "Rap" Brown speech? "We have an understanding of Karma. What goes around, comes around." Hey---maybe somebody from IBM is reading this? Guys, I like the idea of your involvement with Linux, but I can't help but ask... "What you goin' do now?"
The amended SCO complaint Posted Jun 18, 2003 14:52 UTC (Wed) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link] That is funny. Although, I think they sued the right people. IBM won't roll over onthis, and have deep pockets. What SCO is trying to do is collect royalties on a free system. This won't go to court. The stuff they are coming up with is so ridiculous and far fetched. They won't show any evidence, because the possible offending code would be excised within hours, and likely shown to be from bsd. The purpose is as IBM says, again the ones who invented it, FUD. That is why they tripled the damages when IBM didn't sit and beg. And they took the work of a respected Linux journalist and highlighted it in their claim. I wonder how many users of Linux have sent them a cheque already? I suspect it would be surprising. Are the developers, some in employ of other companies, some not, going to let SCO collect royalties on their work? Derek
A corporation is not a person; things to ask the people at IBM Posted Jun 19, 2003 20:22 UTC (Thu) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link] ccchips wrote: "We have an understanding of Karma. What goes around, comes around." It's worth reiterating: A corporation is not a person. How many people who were at IBM 30-40 years ago are still there now? Probably not many. There's a certain symmetry to corporate karma, but one hopes it has no basis in reality. There are a lot of good people at IBM today, and I think they've done a fair amount for the community, in the process of trying to do well by their employer. However, this does raise an important point. As a result of the chain of events begun by this litigation, IBM might end up with some of the intellectual property rights which form the basis for SCO's complaints. If so, the community would be well-advised to talk with IBM about the disposition of that Unix IP. We know that any corporation can change direction. Providing unrestrictive, perpetual and irrevocable licensing for Unix technology would be a nice way for IBM to demonstrate its long-term commitment to the community behind the technology it's helping to develop and market.
Rob Levin, President
|
|||||||||||