| |||||||||||
BingoBingoPosted Jun 24, 2003 17:10 UTC (Tue) by booch (subscriber, #1416)In reply to: What about NUMA? That's Sequent-related, too. by emk Parent article: Does SCO own read-copy-update?
Give that man a cigar. SCO's amended complaint seems to make it clear that this is what SCO is basing pretty much their whole case on. As Cringely and a few other have pointed out, it's a pretty hard argument to win. The UNIX license does say that added code becomes part of UNIX. But if the code existed before it became a part of UNIX, then the author obviously must have a right to create unencumbered derivative works from the original source. Let's assume IBM agreed not to release such code that later got added to UNIX. And assume that they lose the case on the grounds that they divulged information that by contract SCO did not allow. (The language in the contract is a little vague, so it's theoretically possible.) That still doesn't effect Linux. Because even though IBM contributed the code in violation of their contract, they did own the copyright. So after they pay for the violation of their contract, there's no more dispute. Linux users/distributors are not a party to the contract, so they can't be held liable for anything to do with the contract (with the exception of intentionally disrupting a contract). There's no copyright infringement, since the code was contributed by the copyright owner. There's no patent infringement, since IBM owns the patents. SCO doesn't own the trademark to the word UNIX. So the only thing left they could use against Linux users is trade secret law. That's typically only used against the person who leaked the info, not everyone who distributes it. (The DeCSS case being a good counter-example.) And since IBM intentionnally gave away their copyrighted code, I think the copyright would override the trade secret in such a case. Especially if IBM has already paid for releasing such info to the public.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||