SCO update

IBM noted in court that SCO is no longer alleging any sort of disclosure of trade secrets on IBM's part. SCO did provide a small number of files and line numbers of Linux code which, it says, violates IBM's contract with SCO. These files were in the expected parts of the kernel: the read-copy-update code, the JFS filesystem, etc. In every case, the code in question was indisputably written by IBM, and is owned by IBM. Some of it is even patented by IBM.

In other words, as we have noted in the past, SCO has been pushed back to one of its original claims: that it has the right to control the disclosure of any code which has ever breathed the same air as SYSV Unix. IBM sees this, of course, and isn't making it easy. From the hearing:

The point, of course, is that code independently written by IBM does not derive from SYSV Unix at all. This point has been fairly clear to people who have been paying attention for some time. For the rest (i.e. SCO and the bulk of the news media), IBM has to work to get the idea across.

SCO has also requested permission to amend its complaint against IBM yet again. If this change is allowed, it will modify the case in some interesting ways. Much noise has been made in the wider media about the addition (finally) of a copyright infringement charge. This charge says nothing about IBM's contributions to Linux, however; instead, SCO claims infringement because IBM continues to distribute AIX despite having had its license "terminated" by SCO. Unless SCO can convince a court that IBM has breached its contracts with SCO, this charge will evaporate.

The charges of export violations have been fleshed out. It seems that SCO has concluded that IBM's contracts never gave it the right to distribute Unix code in India. Since Linux is clearly available in India, SCO concludes that its contract has been breached yet again.

Perhaps most amusing is the new claim of "interference with contract." Those who have been following this case will recall that Novell has made some interesting claims, including (1) that it still owns the Unix copyrights, and (2) that it has the right to keep SCO from terminating Unix licenses. SCO, it seems, sees the shadowy hand of IBM behind Novell's actions, and is now charging IBM with causing Novell to act the way it has. Novell's own interest in the success of Linux seemingly does not enter into this picture.

Finally, as noted above, the latest version of the complaint deletes the charge of "misappropriation of trade secrets" which had appeared in earlier versions.

Novell, meanwhile, has sent a new letter to SCO in an (undoubtedly IBM-directed) attempt to clarify its view of the "derived works" argument. Novell has dug up some old communications from AT&T regarding its interpretation of the Unix licenses and some changes the company made to make that interpretation more explicit:

SCO's view of derived works never did seem likely to stand up in Court, but Novell has thrown up yet another obstacle in SCO's path. Novell also pulls out its "override clause" from the asset purchase agreement:

That deadline has passed as of this writing. One assumes that SCO did not comply.

Novell has also filed a motion to dismiss SCO's "slander of title" suit against it, and another motion to move the case (in case it is not dismissed) to federal court.

For those who are curious about the Red Hat (Delaware) case: it remains on hold until the judge gets around to ruling on SCO's motion to dismiss the suit. The wheels of American justice never move particularly quickly, but Delaware seems to be especially slow.

The Open Source Development Labs has published another paper on SCO by Eben Moglen; it is available in PDF format. This one is about the Novell suit:

Finally, Don Marti has noted that the Canopy Group has removed all mention of SCO from its web site and appears to be generally backing away from SCO. Perhaps Canopy, too, sees the end of the game on the horizon.