Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 4:14 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (13 responses)

It would be pretty funny if Novell decided to pursue those claims. They're starting to get desperate. But I doubt they will. Maybe they'll just let them sit, until IBM et al get nervous.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 4:44 UTC (Fri) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link] (12 responses)

Pursue what claims? Novell waived tSCOG's claims way back in 2003. Having waived them, by estoppel they can't try to restart. The only thing left in the tSCOG vs IBM case is IBM's counterclaims - look for the smoking Caldera in Utah soon.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 4:53 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (11 responses)

I agree that there is no reasonable case. But then again, there was no reasonable case 5 years ago, and here we are. Novell is showing some signs of potential future trollness, with being on the block and all. And we all cross our fingers and hope nothing will go wrong.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 5:13 UTC (Fri) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link] (7 responses)

Novell:

waived SCO's claims against IBM and Sequent
has IBM as a major partner and customer.
distributes SUSE muchy under GPL.
has explicitly stated Linux (base) does not infringe Unix.

What more do they gotta do?

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 5:58 UTC (Fri) by amacater (subscriber, #790) [Link] (6 responses)

Novell could bless Linux as a UNIX and bring the whole thing full circle :)
- but think of all the documentation that would have to be changed to drop the "Unix-like":). If sold, they could _give_ the wretched UNIX copyrights to someone like the Linux foundation - they can't actually be worth much, if anything at this stage.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 7:29 UTC (Fri) by cate (subscriber, #1359) [Link] (5 responses)

No, Novel has the "unix" copyrights, but not the trademark on "Unix" name.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 12:08 UTC (Fri) by clump (subscriber, #27801) [Link] (4 responses)

At this point, calling Linux a "UNIX" would diminish Linux.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 16:16 UTC (Fri) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link]

GBU/Linux:

"GNU/Linux Better than Unix"

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 16:27 UTC (Fri) by atai (subscriber, #10977) [Link]

Novell can donate the copyright of the Unix source code to the GNU Project, so GNU is Now Unix

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 17:28 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (1 responses)

In what sense calling Linux Unix would diminish it? It is Unix in a conceptual sense, even if not in derivative.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 19, 2010 3:06 UTC (Sat) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

Part 1: humour.

Part 2: perception.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 9:41 UTC (Fri) by halla (subscriber, #14185) [Link]

"Novell is showing some signs of potential future trollness"

Now that's what I call trolling -- or fudding. Take your pick.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 17:13 UTC (Fri) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link]

I agree that SCO never really had a case, but they really did exploit the last possible opportunity to claim that there was a case. SCO was able to say, "we didn't know that there was SYSV code in Linux until we bought the code from Santa Cruz." Novell has known about that claim for years now, and has continued to distribute Linux _under the GPL_ that entire time. If Novell didn't want to give explicit permission to use that code (assuming any existed), they should have done what SCO pretended to do, and stopped distributing Linux immediately until they'd sorted out the copyrights.

Bottom line, SCO claimed that any GPL distribution of Unix code they made was an accident. Seven years after becoming aware of SCO's claims, Novell can no longer claim that they didn't know.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 24, 2010 12:28 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

Hmm... Walks like FUD, check. Swims like FUD, check. Quacks like FUD, check.

Thus I call that FUD.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 4:24 UTC (Fri) by jd (guest, #26381) [Link] (3 responses)

Does anyone know if it's illegal to run zombie actions without a license?

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 7:46 UTC (Fri) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link] (2 responses)

I'm pretty sure killing people and eating their brains is illegal and there is probably no way to get a license to do that. Organising hordes of zombies to do that is probably even more illegal.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 11:58 UTC (Fri) by birlinn (guest, #67078) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm not sure it's that clear cut. They are the undead, after all...

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 19, 2010 3:08 UTC (Sat) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

Can you bring criminal and/or civil charges against the dead?

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 8:34 UTC (Fri) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link] (12 responses)

Could someone who understands the matters enlighten me about what does Novell own/have won now? They have UNIX copyrights, what can they do with them? Would they be able to license them to someone else, or is that subject to some existing agreement e.g. with SCO?

Caldera released "ancient" versions of UNIX (up to 7th ed. and V32) under a 4-clause BSD license. Could they do that? Was it legal? Would Novell be able to do the same thing now?

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 10:44 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (11 responses)

What does Novell own? What have they won? Nobody actually knows, including Novell itself!

Basically, the history is AT&T spun "all things Unix" into Unix System Laboratories (USL). They formed a joint venture with Novell called Univel, which Novell then bought out, taking over USL.

So, at this point, Novell owns all things Unix. At about this point, they also folded in the BSD lawsuit. This placed the legal ownership of the Unix copyrights in considerable doubt (AT&T had sold Unix as a "trade secret". In doing so, they stripped ALL copyright notices. Note that it's illegal to remove someone else's copyright notice ... Then they decided to sell Unix as a copyrighted program so they put THEIR OWN copyright notices on everything. Note that it's illegal to stick your copyright on someone else's work...)

When Novell sold to Santa Cruz, they sold the "ongoing business" but explicitly did not sell any copyrights other than the documentation. Caldera/SCOG then bought that business from Santa Cruz, claimed that they owned "the Unix copyrights", and started suing world+dog.

So all this ruling says is that (a) SCOG didn't get the copyrights because Novell didn't sell them, and (b) they had no right to do what they've done because the Novell/SantaCruz contract said they couldn't do it. The ruling says absolutely nothing about what Novell owns, it just says that, whatever that was, Novell didn't sell it. And the majority opinion on Groklaw is that "whatever Novell owns" is pretty much "whatever Novell wrote" ie their own Unixware code and that's it.

Cheers,
Wol

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 10:52 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Oops - I missed the stuff about "ancient Unix".

Again, the answer is "no-one knows".

The *suspicion* is that all the ancient stuff THAT WAS OWNED BY AT&T was Public Domain before Caldera released it. The problem is, that a lot of it was copyright other people, so neither Novell NOR Caldera actually had the legal right to release it. That doesn't matter much, though, because nobody actually cares.

And I think Novell are on record as giving Caldera permission - INASMUCH AS THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO DO SO. So no, I don't think Caldera had the *right* to do as they did, but they did have Novell's *permission* to do as much as Novell could do. And I don't think any of the affected third parties (eg University College London, Wollongong University, etc) gives a monkey.

Cheers,
Wol

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 12:13 UTC (Fri) by lkundrak (subscriber, #43452) [Link] (8 responses)

At about this point, they also folded in the BSD lawsuit. This placed the legal ownership of the Unix copyrights in considerable doubt (AT&T had sold Unix as a "trade secret". In doing so, they stripped ALL copyright notices.

I thought this was long settled. A wikipedia article states, that USL had to put the UCB copyright notices back into their source files.

Note that it's illegal to stick your copyright on someone else's work...)

I was told that in U.S. you can actually sell/transfer copyright. Is that false?

So, in case Novell could tell which code is from UCB, which is from USL and which is from UnixWare, would they be able to distribute the USL and UnixWare code and license it to someone else? I mean, would they be able to e.g. open its source under a free license?

Unix copyrights?

Posted Jun 11, 2010 14:31 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] (1 responses)

AFAIR, there was a dozen or so files in BSD that had to be redone before releasing the whole under the BSD license. For me this means that whatever little Unix source code property was in USL's hands was probably obsolete even then. Too many hands had had their go at it (somewhat like the current Linux situation, just not on the Internet for all to see). Later Unices (e.g. SVr4) were a remix of 5 parts BSD + 1 part USL + new organization for managing largeish "server" systems.

As I see it, part of the reason why Novell didn't sell the copyrights to SCO way back then was that nobody really knew what they owned, and finding out was too expensive (and might even have backfired, as in "we don't own anything worthwhile").

Unix copyrights?

Posted Jun 12, 2010 20:05 UTC (Sat) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

There were about a dozen files which AT&T could prove they owned. Because *they* had stripped the "proof of ownership" from the files, the presumption was they didn't own them, so Berkeley were then free to remove those twelve from BSD before shipping BSD as completely free of AT&T ownership.

That doesn't mean that BSD doesn't contain large chunks of UCL, Wollongong etc code. All the BSD settlement said was that "if AT&T want to claim copyright the onus is on *them* to prove it" and "AT&T can only *prove* ownership of - I think it was six, actually - files".

The thing that really killed AT&T in court was when they presented vi as code they owned the copyright on. Berkeley promptly produced their own guy, Bill Joy, and proved he wrote it. From that point on, AT&T's claims lost all credibility.

Cheers,
Wol

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 15:52 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] (1 responses)

Note that it's illegal to stick your copyright on someone else's work...)

Without their permission, that is.

Of course you can sell/give away your copyright.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 19, 2010 3:14 UTC (Sat) by k8to (guest, #15413) [Link]

In all theatres of law?

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 16:55 UTC (Fri) by xtifr (guest, #143) [Link] (3 responses)

> I was told that in U.S. you can actually sell/transfer copyright. Is that false?

If you buy the copyrights, then it's no longer someone else's work.

As for opening UNIX code, the problem is that it's not clear who owns the copyrights to which pieces. This case established that Novell didn't sell whatever copyrights they <em>do</em> to own to SCO, but didn't establish (since nobody asked) exactly which copyrights those were. If SCO had won either the jury trial (which asked whether the copyrights were transferred way back when) or the latest ruling (which asked for the copyrights to be transferred now), then the question of what Novell actually owns would have become very important, but as it is, it remains irrelevant.

When it might matter: Reprinting the Lions Book

Posted Jun 11, 2010 17:22 UTC (Fri) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link] (2 responses)

I think it matters to the publishing company Peer to Peer Press, if they ever want to reprint the book "Lions' Commentary on UNIX 6th Edition, with Source Code." The current edition has a permission letter from Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera, who, it looks like, did not have permission to authorize the printing of Novell's copyrighted source code.

Anyone at Novell want to put up a similar letter?

When it might matter: Reprinting the Lions Book

Posted Jun 12, 2010 12:06 UTC (Sat) by dandoernberg (guest, #67517) [Link] (1 responses)

Quite right!

The rights situation re: UNIX is indeed very relevant to us. I don't think there is any question about reprinting the paper edition of the current book, but we'd want the rights issue to be 100% clear before we could (1) issue an ebook edition or (2) perhaps release an updated edition (with new features, new commentaries, additional whatevers).

===========================================================
Dan Doernberg, Publisher
Peer-to-Peer Communications LLC
http://www.peerllc.com

Lions' Commentary on UNIX: ISBN 978-1-57398-013-5
ARPANET Sourcebook: ISBN 978-1-57398-000-5
Complete April Fools' Day RFCs: ISBN 978-1-57398-042-5
===========================================================

When it might matter: Reprinting the Lions Book

Posted Jun 14, 2010 8:29 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Then I suggest you get in touch with Novell and get a clarification from them or better yet ask them to issue a public statement on their intent and plan with the copyrights.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 17:56 UTC (Fri) by marduk (subscriber, #3831) [Link]

Wow, I can't believe it's 2010 and we're still talking about who owns Unix...

At this point, I think it's pretty much only the lawyers who really care.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 17:25 UTC (Fri) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (13 responses)

The Unix might still be in trouble, since Novell is going to be sold out. Unless Novell will release the rights to Unix into the open...

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 19:27 UTC (Fri) by ctg (guest, #3459) [Link] (9 responses)

Novell doesn't really have any rights to UNIX. UNIX is a trade mark and specification owned by the open group or whatever it is now.

What novell have are copyrights to the source of the bits of an implementation of unix that they developed. This is/was called Unixware. This is pretty much obsolete - ithe code base was further developed by The Santa Cruz Operation, then left to rot by Calder/SCO.

The features, and support for contemporary hardware in Linux, *BSD, Solaris, AIX far exceed it's capabilities. No new applications have been written for it, that aren't available on newer platforms, so there is little point in running it. SCO UNIX system calls can be well emulated by other o/s so there is little point in running that.

The original SCO business model was to be like MS - proprietry software developed independantly of hardware. Microsoft one that battle, Linux came up with the only alternative.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 13, 2010 4:15 UTC (Sun) by shmerl (guest, #65921) [Link] (8 responses)

I see. So what is so significant in this victory over SCO than, if Unix TM holders still will cause people to write *nix, Unix-like etc? The real progress will happen when Unix TM will be available to all Unix-like POSIX compliant systems.

Unix brand?

Posted Jun 14, 2010 0:38 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] (5 responses)

To get branded as Unix you have to contact The Open Group and pay a fee... and only that (unchanged!) system (not just the kernel) is then certified as a true Unix. So this would have to be done by distributions, if they are interested. So far, none have found it worth their while.

Unix brand?

Posted Jun 14, 2010 9:25 UTC (Mon) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link] (4 responses)

So far, none have found it worth their while to invest some serious money to make it actually POSIX-compliant so it can pass the neccessary tests.

Unix brand?

Posted Jun 14, 2010 15:54 UTC (Mon) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link] (3 responses)

And, actually, it's pretty certain that in some cases they would have to change POSIX to match linux, not the other way round.

Linus is on record as condemning certain POSIX features as "brain dead", so they'll go into linux over his dead body.

And given the traction linux has, I think linux will win over POSIX, not the other way round :-)

Cheers,
Wol

Unix brand?

Posted Jun 14, 2010 20:49 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

POSIX has already changed in significant ways to match Linux: most of the changes in POSIX.1 2008 were Linux-originated.

Unix brand?

Posted Jun 16, 2010 7:53 UTC (Wed) by trasz (guest, #45786) [Link] (1 responses)

True that - and rather unfortunate, as it means that Linux is the new Microsoft when it comes to standards.

Unix brand?

Posted Jun 16, 2010 22:19 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Given the number of Linux hackers on the Austin Group, and the way that a lot of toolchain people (from GCC to glibc) refuse to add new features until they're standardized, I'd say this accusation is entirely unjustified. We don't 'embrace, extend, extinguish'; we 'extend, standardize' or alternately, sometimes, 'standardize, implement'. This seems a hell of a lot better than the MS way to me, and also better than the traditional Unix-wars fragmentation hell.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 17, 2010 18:04 UTC (Thu) by sorpigal (guest, #36106) [Link] (1 responses)

The victory is this: tSCOG wanted to pursue legal action against Linux developers, distributions and users on the grounds that Linux is somehow a derivative of its own copyrighted code. Novell has no such interest. Since Novell is now declared the true owner the legal threat (insubstantial as it was) is for the time being gone.

The major effect of this is a reduction in FUD. People who don't know anything about Linux can't say "Free? Sounds suspicious. Isn't someone suing you about that? I'm going to stay far away." Instead we can say "Yes, Free, and it's been proven in court." Not that this is exactly true but it sounds good, and sounding good makes people feel safe.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 24, 2010 12:31 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link]

> The major effect of this is a reduction in FUD.

Well, as you can read here in Bruce Perens reactions, that may be a reduction, but new FUD posts arise immediately.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 19:52 UTC (Fri) by error27 (subscriber, #8346) [Link] (2 responses)

It's unusual to find people as dumb as SCO. People say that Darl hurt the lawsuit with his constant buffoonery but the fact is a smarter person wouldn't have started the lawsuit to begin with. I don't believe you can find more than a handful of people in the world who would have attempted it.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 14, 2010 4:28 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] (1 responses)

Not so sure it was dumb; it kept a failing company going (and paying lots of money to its CEO) much longer than it otherwise would have. Let's suppose that SCO had instead said that no one wanted to buy their Unix, and nobody wanted to buy their Linux flavor, so they'd settle for a slowly declining business supporting legacy customers and gradually fade away.

But SCO sold dreams, the idea that all Linux users would have to pay them money, the idea that IBM and other large companies would owe many millions in damages. Money poured into SCO on those hopes, and Darl got a cut of that money.

Bad timing

Posted Jun 15, 2010 2:42 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]

Yes, but SCO backed away from Linux and dropped their legal bomb just in time for Novell to acquire SuSE instead. If they'd stayed the course as Caldera and kept waving the UnitedLinux flag long enough for Novell to pick them, it would have been a bigger payday for everyone involved.

Stewart Rules: Novell Wins! CASE CLOSED! (Groklaw)

Posted Jun 11, 2010 19:45 UTC (Fri) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]

I think LWN should do an article in which Scott James Remnant and Lennart Poettering debate how Caldera/SCO's remaining assets should be reaped.