The Protective Order (Groklaw)

Posted Dec 15, 2003 7:18 UTC (Mon) by steven97 (guest, #2702) [Link]

Posted Dec 15, 2003 10:01 UTC (Mon) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link]

Well, there's the "official" answers and the real answers.

<div type="SCOspeak" stink="high"> The official answer is that even though the code is generally available, it isn't known to be UNIX(tm) code, and unscrupulous third parties would be more likely to misappropriate it into their own programs if they knew that it was of the high standard and had passed the quality reviews expected of UNIX(tm) code. </div>

I suppose a better "reason" might be that, well, I shouldn't have to persuade anyone here of the utility of source code, even if you can't modify it. People working on real UNIX and having problems with that part of the code might like to see what the code actually did.

SCO normally have no problem with this, they just expect you to pay them for a source licence. Which is fair enough.

The real reasons are that if LWN, Groklaw, and the LKML get hold of the contested code, they'd come up with a thorough defence of SCO's claims in short order. This (obviously) would help IBM and hinder SCO's efforts to sell licences for Linux.

If the LKML worked out what's in question, any code that really does have a dubious history would rapidly be re-written or ditched. This would mean that even if SCO win their case, Linux users will be able to move to a non-infringing version in good order. SCO hope that by keeping the code secret (and somehow managing to prove that it is there), they will be able to charge Linux users, who will not be able to remove the infringing code because they don't know what it is.

And the really important reason for SCO is that once all this has happened, it makes their case and their future look much weaker. This hurts their share price (financially hurting the executives), hampers efforts to raise more funding and/or sell the company, makes Linux users much less likely to buy licences, and further encourages OpenServer and Unixware users to migrate away from SCO. (If companies won't ditch SCO because they believe in Free Software, if they don't care about the extra capabilities of Linux because SCO's Unices do everything they need, if they don't know or don't care about the ethics of the current legal antics, they still might move off SCO if they think the company is going to go bankrupt.)

(Others have speculated that shadowy eminences grises have made it worth SCO's while to continue to spread FUD. I continue to believe that human stupidity and greed are perfectly adequate explanations.)

James.

Posted Dec 15, 2003 12:22 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

This is a GENERIC protective order. If IBM hands over AIX source to SCO, they will want it protected. If SCO hands over UnixWare to IBM they will want it protected.

Basically, either side can "file under seal", ie hand their evidence into court in a sealed envelope. Let's take two examples of what might happen.

IBM hands over the AIX source in a sealed envelope. SCO says "it's reasonable for IBM to file under seal". Nobody can look at the evidence without IBM or the court's permission (SCO has implicit permission). In fact, SCO is claiming AIX as its own, so they won't want it filed openly - maybe IBM should try that - file AIX openly into court and wait as SCO screams trying to get it sealed :-)

SCO hands over the list of lines of linux in a sealed envelope. IBM says "but linux is publically available and we want the public to know what SCO is claiming". SCO now has to *justify* why it should be kept secret. From past form, as soon as the request from IBM comes in, the judge will draft the order the lifting the seal, and then ask for SCO's lawyers to try to persuade her why not :-)

Cheers,
Wol