|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

SCO loses again

By Jonathan Corbet
March 31, 2010
It has been just over seven years since the "SCOSource" initiative showed its true colors and filed suit against IBM asking for $1 billion in damages. Much has happened in that time; the nature of the charges has evolved considerably, the price tag has increased, other companies have been pulled in, and SCO has gone into bankruptcy. In the process, SCO attack has, like a vaccination, served to strengthen the community's legal defenses considerably. It has been a wild show to watch.

One of the most surprising developments came when Novell abruptly announced that, in fact, it (and not SCO) was the owner of the Unix copyrights upon which much of the litigation was based. SCO responded with a "slander of title" lawsuit which has been a convoluted multi-year affair in its own right. But, on March 30, a jury in US District Court ruled that, in fact, no copyrights had been transferred to SCO and that Novell remained the owner of Unix.

This outcome was far from guaranteed. SCO's claims against IBM and the Linux community have been repeatedly shown to be without merit, but the Novell litigation was different. That was all based on a vague "asset purchase agreement," twice amended, which was seemingly written by lawyers who were not doing their job. What SCO purchased was truly unclear, and there was no telling what a jury might decide. Now, perhaps, we have some clarity.

It is tempting to see this ruling as the end of the story; rightfully it should be. But anybody who has watched this case for any period of time knows better. The SCO affair is kind of like a bad zombie movie; the plot is implausible, the acting is horrible (ask any of us who sat though all those "Chris and Darl show" conference calls back at the beginning), and, even though you know the good guys must win in the end, that obnoxious zombie just keeps coming back and ruining the party. SCO, which has just obtained a $2 million loan from Ralph Yarro (one of the original architects of this whole mess), may well appeal. Or perhaps it will find a willing buyer for the lawsuit out there. It does not seem like SCO to slip quietly into Chapter 7 bankruptcy at this point.

One should also remember that the Novell case was a sideshow; IBM is the main event. Losing the ownership of the copyrights clearly cannot help SCO's case, but it has long since been shown that there's nothing covered by those copyrights in Linux anyway. Much of the dispute was over code clearly owned by IBM, but which SCO claimed could only be distributed under the proprietary Unix terms. SCO might just choose to pursue its breach of contract (and related) claims. The fact that Novell claims the right to issue "get out of jail free" cards with regard to Unix licensing will complicate matters, and could prove fodder for extensive legal maneuvering in its own right.

Meanwhile, as long as some shred of SCO remains, one can only imagine that IBM will not be in a mood to forgive, forget, or drop its counterclaims. IBM has clearly put many millions of dollars into this fight; its chances of getting any of that back would appear to be approximately zero, but IBM is unlikely to want to leave SCO in a position to plan another attack.

SCO has long since ceased to be a threat to Linux, of course; at this point, most of us can afford to sit back and watch the remainder of the show. But we should not forget that SCO set out to kill our community. The attack was baseless and clownish, but it still created considerable uncertainty and expense. The sad fact of the matter is that, when companies lose in the market, they try to win in the courtroom, especially in the US. There will be other attackers, and at least some of those attackers will not make so many silly mistakes.

In the past, LWN has asked Novell to clarify what it intends to do with the Unix copyrights that, once again, it seems to clearly own. Those copyrights cannot have much - if any - commercial value at this point. It would make great sense for Novell to release all of that code as free software, optimally under a permissive license. Until that happens, those copyrights will be a temptation to those who think they can somehow use them in litigation. That zombie, at least, can be definitively killed.


to post comments

SCO loses again

Posted Apr 1, 2010 1:50 UTC (Thu) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (3 responses)

The problem never was SCO. It was always Ralph and Darl. As long as they're running loose, the problem remains. Jail them, and the problem subsides for a while. Unfortunately there's probably not enough regular fraud material for more than a couple of years in the pokey, but a couple of years' quiet is better than none. I wonder if they could be arrested for (legal) terrorism... I imagine they could be imprisoned indefinitely for that, without wasting even more time in court.

SCO loses again

Posted Apr 1, 2010 2:48 UTC (Thu) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link] (2 responses)

More to the point, it's the source of funds for Darl's excellent adventure. He would never have been able to do it without his enablers, Sun and Microsoft. I never did quite understand Sun's rationale, but Microsoft's was clear.

If they had not waved money at him, he would not have been able to hang on nearly as long as he did.

SCO loses again

Posted Apr 2, 2010 22:51 UTC (Fri) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] (1 responses)

Sun's motivation has always seemed pretty obvious to me.

They have always been, in their own minds, the One, True, Professional
Unix.

If only permitted a fair market opportunity, Solaris would have prevailed.

If only permitted a fair market opportuntiy, *Open*Solaris would have
prevailed.

They wanted Linux tied up in court so that Solaris would become the safe
choice.

I'm open to alternative theories...

SCO loses again

Posted Apr 6, 2010 3:05 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

They wanted to open source Solaris. To do that they got experienced
engineers to go through the source, line by line, to identify all code to
which there might be other rights holders. Then in combination with legal,
they tried to figure out the legal status of the code. Where applicable,
they went to other rights holders to see what was needed to open source the
code.

But who knows for sure..

Can Novell release Unix as free software?

Posted Apr 1, 2010 6:59 UTC (Thu) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] (3 responses)

I'm no lawyer, but under the Novell-SCO Asset Purchase Agreement (in particular section 1.6), Novell seems to have agreed to use Unix only as an embedded OS, internally, or under certain change-of-control conditions.

That probably means they don't have the right to open-source Unix. In any case, one can't blame the Novell board if they choose not to open themselves to more litigation over that agreement!

Besides, it still isn't clear how much of System V actually belongs to Novell. Much of it belongs to Berkeley, obviously. Does the Xenix code still belong to Microsoft? How many other companies have code in System V, and did they license it or sell the copyrights? If they licensed it, did the licenses allow for open-sourcing, and did those licenses transfer to SCO under the asset purchase agreement?

Caldera reported a long time ago that it had looked into open-sourcing all of Unix, and reported that issues like these made an open source Unix impractical.

Yes, Sun has open-sourced Solaris, but they did so without the permission of at least one copyright holder (Novell!).

Can Novell release Unix as free software?

Posted Apr 1, 2010 13:24 UTC (Thu) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] (2 responses)

Novell vas involved in USL, and bought the rest of it from AT&T way back. So they originally owned all copyrights to Unix (but a lot of Unix wasn't copyrighted, and another large portion belonged to others). Then they sold the "develop and sell licenses to Unix binaries" plus "handle source licencees" business to The Santa Cruz Operation (original SCO). Novell kept the copyrights (and asked for 95% of the royalties on source licenses). The agreement (the infamous APA) stated that in case SCO needed copyrights for their business, Novell would give them to SCO (presumably after finding out whom (if anybody) they belonged to). SCO went along merrily without any need for copyrights, and then sold the Unix business and the SCO name to Caldera (a then Linux distributor), who wanted to integrate Unix and Linux. Caldera changed its name to The SCO Group (SCOX). Along came another set of CxOs to SCOX, and came up with the bright idea of sueing Linux users for using alleged Unix code in Linux. But for that they needed the copyrights, and first asked for them from Novell, and then sued Novell for slander of title because of its pùblic statements that the copyrights hadn't been sold to SCO (and thus landed in SCOX hands).

Now the jury has stated that the copyrights belonged to Novell all along, so Novell is certainly in position to open source them. But there is the snag that Novell might be forced to hand them to SCOX (due to the promise in the APA), but that is higly unlikely: SCOX stated during the trial that they didn't need them for the business they bought originally from SCO, they needed them just for their SCOsource "sue your own customers" program, and that one they also stated in the recent trial is toast by now.

Can Novell release Unix as free software?

Posted Apr 2, 2010 8:54 UTC (Fri) by james (subscriber, #1325) [Link] (1 responses)

vonbrand wrote:
So they originally owned all copyrights to Unix (but a lot of Unix wasn't copyrighted, and another large portion belonged to others).
That's sort-of inconsistent. AT&T originally owned all copyrights to the early Unixes, but by the time Novell got involved, as you say, a large part of Unix (by then) belonged to others. So that large part couldn't have belonged to Novell.

They must have had rights to redistribute (for example, the BSD license), but those rights may have been limited (there may have been confidentiality clauses). It's also probable that those rights passed to SCO (under section III of Schedule 1.1(a)): the question just hasn't arisen under the current lawsuits.

Now the jury has stated that the copyrights belonged to Novell all along, so Novell is certainly in position to open source them.
That doesn't follow, either. It's quite possible to own something but be contractually limited as to what you can do with it. The APA is a contract, and the section I pointed to certainly seems to place some limits on what Novell can do with Unix.

Like a lot of the rest of that contract, it's less than clear!

Can Novell release Unix as free software?

Posted Apr 2, 2010 17:04 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

actually, when Unix was initially written the law was not automatic copyrights to anything you wrote, you had to take specific actions to copyright things. For much of the Unix codebase those actions were not taken, and so it was not under copyright, by AT&T or anyone else.

Then there was the Berkley lawsuit, which showed that large portions of the Unix codebase was under copyright by Berkley, not by AT&T.

the situation of who owned what is _far_ from being clear, even before AT&T sold it.

SCO loses again

Posted Apr 1, 2010 13:02 UTC (Thu) by pr1268 (guest, #24648) [Link]

  at this point, most of us can afford to sit back and watch the remainder of the show.

Or, we can go about our business and ignore this madness. (My snide comment isn't directed at our editor, but rather at the asininity of this whole ordeal. SCO has been a freak show now for what? Seven years?)

Jon's analogy that this is like a bad zombie movie is right on the mark.


Copyright © 2010, Eklektix, Inc.
This article may be redistributed under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY-SA 4.0 license
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds