This week in SCOland [LWN.net]

Last week's Edition prompted a complaint or two about too much SCO coverage in LWN. It is our hope to slowly edge SCO off the front page once again, but the company makes that hard. This case is important for Linux and free software, and we need to keep an eye on it.

The big news since last week's Edition, of course, is IBM's response and countersuit, which was filed on August 7. We published a look at IBM's counterclaims on that day; the full text of IBM's filing is also available. IBM's response looks, in many ways, like Red Hat's suit from a few days before, but there are a couple of important differences.

The first is that IBM makes a formal charge of GPL infringement against the SCO Group. Bringing the GPL into the case is not an entirely surprising thing for IBM to do; SCO's violation of that license seem relatively clear. But its presence in IBM's filing sets this case up to be, perhaps, the first true test of the GPL in court. Some of the noises coming out of SCO suggest that the company believes it may be possible to break the GPL in court and would like to do so. We must hope that IBM's lawyers are on top of this part of the case.

The other important difference, of course, is that IBM has alleged four counts of patent infringement. As much as many in the community are pleased with anything that causes discomfort for SCO, the use of software patents is always a cause for concern. A separate article (below) looks at the specifics of IBM's patent allegations and how Linux stands with regard to those patents.

SCO has not skimped on press releases over the last week. The company's response to IBM's counterclaims included an interesting statement:

If IBM were serious about addressing the real problems with Linux, it would offer full customer indemnification and move away from the GPL license.

Exactly how IBM would "move away from the GPL" is not specified. SCO has also claimed the sale of a Linux license to a Fortune 500 company - but, as is usual for SCO, they won't say who the purchaser is or what sort of deal they were offered. Finally, SCO announced the "termination" of Sequent's Unix license.

SCO's System V UNIX contract allowed Sequent to prepare derivative works and modifications of System V software "provided the resulting materials were treated as part of the Original [System V] Software." Restrictions on use of the Original System V Software include the requirement of confidentiality, a prohibition against transfer of ownership, and a restriction against use for the benefit of third parties. Sequent-IBM has nevertheless contributed approximately 148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, containing 168,276 lines of code. This Sequent code is critical NUMA and RCU multi-processor code previously lacking in Linux.

This is a reiteration of the core of SCO's claim against IBM: the Unix licenses give SCO rights over any code which has ever touched Unix, regardless of its source or ownership.

The next event in the SCO saga is likely to be the company's third-quarter earnings call, happening 9:00 MST (GMT-6) on Thursday, August 14. Among other things, the company will evidently discuss the substantial amount of insider trading which has occurred since the IBM suit was filed. Stay tuned.

(Log in to post comments)

Selling Linux without proving you own it

Posted Aug 15, 2003 0:07 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I have to prove I own a block of land before I can sell it, so I don't see why the same doesn't apply here.

You don't have to prove you own land before you can sell it, and for the same reason it isn't obviously wrong for SCO to try to sell licenses for Linux.

I'm sure like in most of the western world, people in Australia routinely sell land without proving they own it. They do it one of two ways - 1) a warranty deed, which means if it later turns out the seller didn't own the land, he has to buy it for him (or equivalent); or 2) a quit claim deed, which means the seller is transferring only whatever ownership, if any, he may have of the land. Obviously, the less you prove that you own the land, the less money a buyer will give you for it. But no one is going to put you in jail for offering to sell land without proving you own it.

Likewise, if people are buying Linux licenses now, it is at a considerable discount from what they think Linux is worth, since they know SCO probably doesn't have any rights to license.

That doesn't mean there isn't some unfair trade practice or fraud or something going on; just that offering Linux licenses without proving you own Linux is not illegal per se.

Conference Call #

Posted Aug 14, 2003 11:30 UTC (Thu) by fyodor (guest, #3481) [Link]

SCO just put out their earnings announcement. They "earned" $3.1 million (0.19/share). Their SCOSource extortion department generated 7.3MM in revenue, but I think the vast majority of that is residual from the big MS/Sun deals that will fall to zero after (I think) Q4.

The important announcement in the release is that the toll-free teleconference number is 800-811-0667 with the code being 452322. It is THIS MORNING (Thursday 11AM Eastern/8AM Pacific). I would advise anyone with an inerest in this case to listen in. Not only does it cost them real money, but you might get a chance to ask Darl McBride questions about his latest scams. Unfortunately SCO tends to only take questions from well-known publications/analysts that they think will be friendly, but you never know: they took one from a Linux Journal guy in the last call. When you call, be prepared for a live operator to ask for your name and company affiliation.