Did SCO open Unix source code? (ZDNet)

Posted Jun 12, 2003 15:29 UTC (Thu) by error27 (subscriber, #8346)
Parent article: Did SCO open Unix source code? (ZDNet)

Chris Sontag said in an interview the day before SCO stopped selling Linux that it was OK for SCO to distribute the SCO IP inside the kernel because "it's our IP." In that same interview he admitted that they had been investigating the problem for over a year.

That's what SCO still doesn't seem to understand. It would be illegal for a company to pay royalties for the Linux kernel and then redistribute it. Companies are allowed to remove the infringing code and they are allowed to pay damages but they are not allowed to pay "royalties." (Please notice that I said companies and not customers. I don't think Unixware, AIX, or Linux users are ever going to be held liable for anything they purchased).

SCO's deal with Lindows is another example. Lindows claimed they had a unique position because of a deal with SCO, but under the GPL no one is unique. Either everyone can redistribute the code or no one can.

While it's obvious that Caldera doesn't understand the GPL, I hope it would be difficult for SCO to use that as a defense in court.

Customers not liable? Wrong!

Posted Jun 12, 2003 16:05 UTC (Thu) by rjamestaylor (guest, #339) [Link] (2 responses)

(Please notice that I said companies and not customers. I don't think Unixware, AIX, or Linux users are ever going to be held liable for anything they purchased).

A common misconception is that buying a software product from a commerical vendor indemnifies me, the customer, from IP claims against my vendor. As Timeline vs Microsoft SQLServer customers* says:

In a judgement issued Friday, the Washington Superior Court of King County confirmed that a 1999 licensing agreement between the two companies limits Microsoft's ability to "sublicense" patented technology that was developed by Timeline and employed by Microsoft in SQL Server, Timeline said in a statement Wednesday.
The judgement means that certain customers, independent software vendors and other parties who have customized SQL Server by adding programs to it will have to pay Timeline a licensing fee for the use of its technology, according to Charlie Osenbaugh, chief executive officer at Timeline, in Bellevue, Washington.

SCO tries to imply that Linux users are vulnerable because there isn't a vendor responsible for reviewing the IP in Linux. But, in reality, vendors do not automatically indemnify their customers from IP claims. Even when it is obvious that a Microsoft customer expects that Microsoft owns the license for all the associated IP in its products, a court has agreed the Timeline can go after those customers.

The technology in question relates to the design and use of data marts and data warehouses and is protected by three U.S. patents, according to Timeline.
Last week's judgement confirms that Microsoft's right to sublicense Timeline's technology is "substantially limited," and means that some SQL Server users may be liable to pay Timeline for use of its technology, according to Timeline's Osenbaugh. The company didn't offer a clear estimate of how many users may be affected, saying only that it believes that "some" are.
Timeline said a license to its technology ranges from US$250,000 to $5 million depending on the size of the licensee and how the technology is used.

Good thing no one would ever think of using a SQL database for data warehousing and data marts. Whew! But the point is, SCO's assertions that proprietary vendors protect their customers is patently false.

* - I know, that's not the actual court docket for the case, but it is the effect of the judgement...

Re: Customers not liable? Wrong!

Posted Jun 12, 2003 16:48 UTC (Thu) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link]

The customers can't be held responsible for any actions by
IBM in violation of the agreement with SCO. Lawsuits over
copyright infringement are of course possible, except for
the fact that SCO/Caldera released the same code under a
license which allows them to use it.

Customers not liable? Wrong!

Posted Jun 13, 2003 22:26 UTC (Fri) by jneves (guest, #2859) [Link]

From this set, probably the least liable of them all would be GNU/Linux users, if the courtroom accepts article 7 of the GPL 2, then SCO will have no case against Linux users.