LWN: Comments on "Notes from the SCO conference call"

Notes from the SCO conference call

jeremyn — Tue, 10 Jun 2003 05:32:49 +0000

I'll bet you have a small company, with this degree of eloquence. You and you l33t h4x0r
budd(y), eh?

Notes from the SCO conference call

mmarq — Mon, 09 Jun 2003 22:47:35 +0000

Nevertheless (for the last time), i'm typing this in a fonetic and not in a idiographic language, caps dont "mean" a more or less audible sound, but a more "IMPORTANT" letter, word or sentence specialy used at the begining of first names. Although the association is understable, bigger letters are more "adquate" to represent a yell than caps,... check a languages prof!... and dont think i dont repect rules.

On the allegedly copied comments

proski — Mon, 09 Jun 2003 16:30:41 +0000

We are rehashing the same thing over and over again. Check previous comments.

What if the code in question is in JFS? Engineer A took the code from Unix to AIX while implementing JFS. Engineer B took the code from AIX to OS/2. Engineer C took the code from OS/2 to Linux without being aware that the code comes from Unix. Neither engineer was aware of any legal implications. Yet it won't help IBM in the lawsuit.

Notes from the SCO conference call

tjc — Mon, 09 Jun 2003 15:47:38 +0000

The fact is such messages are hardly have any useful info in them.

Either that or they're messages from your boss. ;-)

Oh wait, that's the same category. Never mind...

Notes from the SCO conference call

evgeny — Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:50:20 +0000

> Why the well people associate caps to something loud?...

What should they be associated with, then?

> they surely dont emit any sound,

Unfortunately (or actually fortunately) LWN isn't fully multimedia-enabled...
Nada, taking a risk of getting an howler comment?!

> or at least is not that the intention when you see the size of letters
> "Comment editor" in this site

The "Comment editor" is a page title. It's normal for English typesetting to make the title different, in that form or another, from the text. Using caps for an entire paragraph is AGAINST the typesetting rules. When one breaks a rule, there should be a reason. Accentuating an important word in a phrase is a well-accepted rhetoric approach. But accentuating ALL words is just a yell. So that's what your post looked to me (and I bet to many others) - a loud scream.

On the allegedly copied comments

eru — Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:47:17 +0000

If there indeed are the same comments in the supposedly similar codes, they are a most interesting finding, and do not necessarily support SCO's allegations.

It seems to me that they are evidence against intentional copying from SCO. Someone knowingly stealing code and trying to cover his tracks would probably change or eliminate all comments first, because they are the easiest to modify without taking any risk that the functionality of the code itself breaks. So whoever copied the code (in either direction, or from some third source) probably thought it was OK.

Notes from the SCO conference call

mmarq — Mon, 09 Jun 2003 14:07:49 +0000

Why the well people associate caps to something loud?... they surely dont emit any sound, or at least is not that the intention when you see the size of letters "Comment editor" in this site... surely is not an outburst of LWN editors temper.
ok, ok,... i can see a respectufull attitude of not wasting to much space, using caps , for saying the same things, and that others can make better use of... but i dont change a comma to what have posted in caps.
And "THE IMPORTANT ISSUE" (only to be more enfatic, not to shout at anyone year) is: Why the same things that happen in Germany (by LinuxTag and Tarent), restaining SCO in courtrain, is not happen in USA?.

Notes from the SCO conference call

evgeny — Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:31:11 +0000

> i think what you mean is that you only like to listen to yourself, and the
> ones that think like you.

What I mean is I like to listen to people who have smart ideas; not loud ones. The art of discussion isn't about how to produce more decibells...

> WHY DONT YOU BUY LWN??????

This triggered my "all-caps-on" brain filter, so the rest of the post went to /dev/null.

Notes from the SCO conference call

evgeny — Sun, 08 Jun 2003 20:18:36 +0000

> Probably not necessary. MESSAGES LIKE THIS ARE EASY TO IGNORE!!! I just
> pipe them through my brain and filter them out. :-)

Right, so do I. But just like hitting "Delete" on spam items in one's inbox takes time and is in general irritating, so anti-spam tools are now used everywhere, so...

> On the other hand, if anyone said anything important with their caps lock
> on, then I missed it...

The fact is such messages are hardly have any useful info in them. Just an outburst of author's temper. YMMV, but I'd like to be pointed to an all-caps-on message in the LWN archives that contained a polite and reasonably balanced opinion.

SCO website running on...

minichaz — Sun, 08 Jun 2003 12:54:16 +0000

Just out of interest I took at look at what platform SCO is running its website on. Can you guess? :o)

Take a look...

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?mode_u=off&mode_w=on&site=www.sco.com&submit=Examine

Finding the code in question

minichaz — Sun, 08 Jun 2003 12:20:27 +0000

_If_ there is code that has been copied from system 5 UNIX that includes the comments from the original and SCO will not tell the community where it is, should it not be easy for us, or a big company with Linux interests (eg IBM), to find it?

My understanding is that a large amount of the system 5 code is out in the wild, or that at least IBM, Novell and others have a copy of it, so would not a simple shell script that parses the system 5 code, extracts all the comments, and then searches for them in the Linux kernel code be easy to implement?

Why has this not been done? Am I missing something?

Notes from the SCO conference call

brouhaha — Sun, 08 Jun 2003 05:26:05 +0000

Apparently because no one at SCO remembered the amendment to the original contract. There are probably few if any current employees of SCO that have been there since the time of that amendment.

The other important question

Baylink — Sun, 08 Jun 2003 03:49:50 +0000

Yes, but that's not their goal.

Their *goal* is to drive the stock price up as far as possible, so it's above the strike price of their options.

Loud mouth filter

Baylink — Sun, 08 Jun 2003 03:47:24 +0000

Hitler!

Godwin!

Now, can we get back to the reasoned conversation?

:-)

IBM is confident because IBM already knows...

mmarq — Sun, 08 Jun 2003 01:06:27 +0000

I dont believe that IBM is in this "black plot of silence" pact with SCO+M$.
How could they reassure to the customers, that the servers they sell with Linux are completly sane in every aspect, having they known for "centuries" that there's something wrong?... it requires them to be iqual or worst than M$.
How could they bet, sell and promote Linux, and then participate in a plot to destroy it?

Second interlocutory injunction against SCO issued in Germany

mmarq — Sun, 08 Jun 2003 00:42:52 +0000

Tarent GmbH are making the Linux community feel very proud and respected... a big applause and thanks "must" go to Tarent Gmbh as it went to LinuxTag.
Complaint to the European Comission may follow in the order of $millions?!...
Why the same that is happening in Germany is not happening in the US?...can anyone explain it?.

Notes from the SCO conference call

mmarq — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 23:55:58 +0000

That's the right attitude... no need for M$ like censorship, "white" or "black" lists.
Nevertherless capitals absorve more space, they only are true offensive in people minds,... at least i have no intention of offending no one,... sometimes happens in more hot matters,... and IMHO people that are more concerned with "aspects" or "image" are not paying attention to the real important issues.

Second interlocutory injunction against SCO issued in Germany

daniele — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:20:11 +0000

English Version: Prohibited Claims by SCO -- Plaintiffs Raise Contempt Charges

In spite of the interlocutory injunctions issued by district courts in Bremen and Munich, a German SCO web site still displays the prohibited statement that Linux contains illegally obtained SCO property.

"For them to ignore the court orders is outrageous. Evidently they intend to continue their strategy of intimidating GNU/Linux users and the Linux community," said Michael Kleinhenz, spokesman for the LinuxTag association, about the behavior of SCO's German subsidiary.

After a first injunction against SCO had been obtained by the system supplier univention GmbH in Bremen on May 28th, 2003, the software and consulting company tarent GmbH obtained another injunction in Munich's first district court on June 5 in spite of a caveat filed by SCO.

"The Munich I district court determined that SCO had not plausibly demonstrated that the Linux kernel violates SCO's rights," said attorney Dr. Till Jaeger of the firm of Jaschinski Biere Brexl, which represents tarent GmbH in this matter. Because SCO continued to publish the disputed claims, tarent GmbH requested that the company be fined. "We can't simply allow them to confuse GNU/Linux users, causing damage to Linux businesses," said tarent's Managing Director, Elmar Geese. "We hope our initial success will help to demonstrate that Linux can be used dependably. As a company that profits from Free Software, we feel it is our duty to take action against SCO."

Klaus Knopper, developer of the GNU/Linux distribution Knoppix, criticized the strategy behind SCO's claims: "What kind of respect is SCO showing for the intellectual property of the many Linux developers who have worked to develop an operating system that is free and open to all -- on which SCO's own Linux distribution was based, by the way? You can read on the SCO website that they have used and continue to use other GPL software in their products," Knopper added.

source: http://linuxtag.de

How to make sure the code in question is SCO's?

jmccusker — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 21:02:42 +0000

That's not true at all. SCO should be able to compile the same section of code (or the module itself) using the original compiler and find the bytecodes in the code that are in question. C code compiles in a consistent manner and it's a fairly trivial process to show the binary code that's generated from the sections of code that are claimed to be in copyright infringement. This bytecode can be used as a 'fingerprint' which can be use to identify the use of this code in previous versions of UNIX.

SCO can further bulster their claim by compiling the same code using the GNU C compiler(s) that Linux used in order to generate similar fingerprints for Linux binary kernels.

I suspect it will be fairly easy for SCO to 'prove' that their code in question was incorporated into previous versions of UNIX. They can also use this same technique to guarantee that this code didn't arrive from older BSD kernels.

Notes from the SCO conference call - re: Lawyer

tjc — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:25:39 +0000

This could be a BIG opportunity for the FreeBSD people to polish up their distribution, get some more documentation out, and help replace all those cute penguins out there with cute red daemons.

Well, in a worse case senario I don't see that there's anything that would prevent Linux from using BSD code. The respective licenses seem to allow code to flow from BSD to Linux, but not vise-vera. But it seems unlikely that it will ever come to this, unless some judge makes a particularly bone-headed ruling.

I think that the worse that could happen is that a court rules that SCO owns certain aspects of SVR4, whether covered by POSIX/FIPS or no, and Linux has to reimplement certain things such as IPC and syncronization, for example. It's hard to see even this happening, but there's this little voice that keeps telling me that SCO can't be as dumb as they look. :-)

Notes from the SCO conference call - re: Lawyer

dmomara — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:25:24 +0000

SCO, call your lawyer.
Aren't these the people who as Caldera were "integrating Linux and UNIX for business" or some such nonsense for years?
What is "Linux kernel personality" and how was it implemented?
Why is IBM the only party that could have stirred up a mess of source code between FOSS and a proprietary operating system which Caldera now SCO "owns?"
This is a nasty pile.

UNIX is a registered trademark of the Open Group in the united states and other countries.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds, a really nice guy.

Mongolian-cluster-fsck is a trade and service mark of lawyers everywhere.

Notes from the SCO conference call

tjc — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 20:08:25 +0000

E.g., if percentage of capital letters exceeds some reasonable limit, or there are more than one exclamation/question mark in a row, the submission would be rejected.

Probably not necessary. MESSAGES LIKE THIS ARE EASY TO IGNORE!!! I just pipe them through my brain and filter them out. :-)

On the other hand, if anyone said anything important with their caps lock on, then I missed it...

SCO Anyone?

kmagnusson — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 19:01:26 +0000

They're a litigation company now, not a product company. My guess is they don't expect anyone to do business with them ever again in the traditional sense. A pretty short-term business strategy if you ask me. Makes me think their ultimate goal is to get bought out. Somehow I don't think IBM is going to buy them out.

One of my friends had lunch with some people from SCO the other day and asked them why the IBM suit. Their response was that they thought they could make more money doing this than selling products. Pretty telling.

................ kris

Loud mouth filter

veelo — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:24:13 +0000

Agreed. Adding the phrase "curl up and die" to the list would produce an adequate
filter.

Notes from the SCO conference call

mmarq — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:07:13 +0000

i think what you mean is that you only like to listen to yourself, and the ones that think like you.

WHY DONT YOU BUY LWN??????

that way i can assure you that you wouldnt need "anti-spam", and all your comments always be in the top of the list... and of course, with only your close friends subscriving, you wouldnt have to worry about the graphical aspect of submissions either.

Conclusion: what the hell are you doing in a Linux forum anyway?

Notes from the SCO conference call - re: Lawyer

wweber — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 12:12:46 +0000

# On what Linux users should do: they should be talking to their lawyers.

My conversation with will be very short. It will begin with, "I went to my
local MicroCenter and bought Mandrake PowerPack 9.0. I didn't know it was stolen!"

Once SCO gets their $1 billion, are they going to make an Ashcroft-style sweep of all MicroCenters, CompUSA's, and the like to locate every last Linux customer? Oh, and that thick book of Linux source I saw in the MicroCenter Books Department: are they going to send out secret agents to storm every buyer of THAT tome? After all, it IS a book of Trade Secrets!

This could be a BIG opportunity for the FreeBSD people to polish up their distribution, get some more documentation out, and help replace all those cute penguins out there with cute red daemons.

Notes from the SCO conference call

evgeny — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 09:09:00 +0000

I'd like to see some "anti-spam" features in the LWN comment submission pipeline. E.g., if percentage of capital letters exceeds some reasonable limit, or there are more than one exclamation/question mark in a row, the submission would be rejected. Or, to be able to populate a "black list" in my preferences so comments sent by people from the list would appear "collapsed" in the comment tree.

How to make sure the code in question is SCO's?

mmarkov — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 07:17:57 +0000

The comparison I am talking about is between
SCO and SCO, not between SCO and Linux. My
point is that, AFAIK, there is no way to
verify that the code in question was in their
original source tree -- might have been added
recently.

Therefore, even if they show under an NDA their
source to someone, they can't prove that indeed
this is the original source code. If it were an
aircraft design, the drawings would be easily
verifiable by an expert-graphologist. Any
tinkering with them would be detected just by
examining them. With a symbolic sequence that
the source is, that's obviously not the case.

A way to show the integrity of their sources
would be to run them through a compiler and
see if the resulting binary matches bitwise
the binary that they were selling to their
customers. Of course, the comments' originality
and integrity cannot be verified like that,
because the compiler's output is regardless of
the comments.

Notes from the SCO conference call

jdthood — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 06:27:33 +0000

This case is a reminder to everyone that if they want to
create free software, they must do it without looking at
proprietary software in order to avoid suspicion of IP
violation.

I now see a second motivation (beside its wanting to appear
"open") for Microsoft to decide to "share" its source code
with some of its customers. Anyone who has seen that code
is now contaminated -- they can no longer safely write free
software!

The other important question

mmarq — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 04:23:37 +0000

The SCO vs IBM trial is going to take place, aproximatily 2 years from now!

"IBM immediately had the case transferred from state to federal court and asked for routine extensions in their response time. The case is now expected to go to trial in about 2 years. IBM could easily stretch the trial out for 3 to 5 years. SCO will be really lucky to live that long". From: http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit032.html

So unless SCO is restrained , he are going to have 2 yers of FUD, in which no real evidence no details and no specifics about allegations are given;...and all this discussions are pointless, AND M$ WINS 2 YEARS

Notes from the SCO conference call

mmarq — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 04:02:55 +0000

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU WAITING FOR

I'M ""CEO"" FROM A VERY SMALL CONSULTING AND INTEGRATION COMPANY, AND DONT HAVE THE MUSCLE FOR SUCH ACTIONS...BUT IF I COULD NO DOUBT ABOUT IT THAT I WOULD.

AREN'T YOU ANGRY ENOUGH????...DO LIKE TO BE KICKED IN THE GROINS???...LETS GET A BIG PUNCH ON THE TOP OF THE TABLE; OR SCO SHOW EVIDENCE OR SUE OR SHUT THE FU?K UP...(like in germany with LinuxTAG http://www.linuxtag.org/2003/en/press/releases.xsp?id=3)

Where is Linux International Institute, where is RED HAT, Suse, where is HP with their 2 billions Linux sales!!!!!!....... no ofence intended but has everyone became eunuch.... if i'm missing something please someone illuminate me.

IBM is confident because IBM already knows...

freeio — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 03:24:05 +0000

Those of us in the user/developer community have the source for gnu/linux and all of the parts and pieces, but we do not have access to the SCO source code. So we cannot directly run the analysis to compare what may be similar and why it is that way.

However, as an SCO licensee, would not IBM have the SCO source code and be able to do a full analysis as to the similarities and where exactly they occur? They most certainly have the computing horsepower to check it every way possible, and in a flat hurry. Assuming this to be true, we can safely assume that IBM knows of each and every match and similarity, and has already done considerable analysis on the results. Perhaps this accounts for their apparent unruffled confidence going into this legal battle. Something tells me that they know what SCO sees, and already know better than SCO where it all came from. 4.4BSDLite? FreeBSD? Caldera during the cooperative period? Hardware manufacturer driver code? Sample code from Knuth? The Dragon Book? Some issue of the ACM Proceedings? We may not know, but IBM probably already has the paper trail to prove the source for every similarity that good software tools could find. IBM is nothing if not thorough in legal matters. Thus, their confidence in the outcome. IBM knows, and is keeping that as a closely guarded secret to be released in due time.

This also explains SCO's strained unwillingness to point out in public the specific parts of the code which they accuse of being copied. The distributed institutional memory of the entire UNIX/GNU community will find the true source of any similarities in due course (and rather quickly). If the common source is from some published literature, it will be found. If it is from some third party, that will come out. Someone remembers, and the truth will come out. SCO needs the theater to push stock prices up, and so does not want an early resolution.

(By the way, could this access to the SCO source code apsect be another reason Microsoft recently bought the SCO license? They are most assuredly curious to know the outcome before the trial, and this would give them a leg up. This foreknowledge requires access to the SCO source code, which Microsoft has just purchased.)

Current SCO management does not appear to understand software development particularly well. (The modern business schools seem to teach that a good manager can manage absolutely anything - a naked lie, but a lie which many of us have witnessed firsthand - i.e. the PHB.) There has arisen a generation which knows finance better than technology,. and this crowd is in control. As such, the possibilities of what actually happened are not apparent to them, and they can only see one-way transfers of their precious code to the unworthies, and not that it well could have occurred the other way around. The fact that CVS repositories could actually prove such a thing has escaped their notice. Discovery should be a hard time for this crowd.

All we see now is posturing and bluff. But in this battle I would say that IBM is actually the cat and SCO the mouse. IBM now gets to choose whether to go for the quick kill, or play with their mouse for while first. SCO will go down - and will not need to be bought off to do so. It is merely a matter of what torment they will endure in the process.

How to make sure the code in question is SCO's?

fizzywump — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 03:21:00 +0000

Being not-a-programmer, you don't realize how difficult a comparison that would be. The
two binaries would never exactly match, because Linux and SCO have different ABI's and
runtime libraries.

SCO Anyone?

gunnerjoe — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 02:29:21 +0000

Anyone who will ever do business with SCO again please stand up.

(-;

Notes from the SCO conference call

NerdlyMcGeek — Sat, 07 Jun 2003 00:17:05 +0000

I posted this previously with another article and was hoping to get some feedback..

Thanx McGeek

Posted Jun 6, 2003 23:31 UTC (Fri) by NerdlyMcGeek) (Post reply)

Darl McBride doesn't understand Linux (NewsForge)

And not much about anything else....

It is interesting to note that Lindows made an agreement with SCO for this supposed "IP" some time ago. But they somehow just recently discovered this "IP" problem? I am very interesed as to exactly when did SCO shake down Lindows? Might I humbly suggest that the Lindows folks be issued a sopeona to testify in this regard. Should they have made an agreement prior to what SCO "claims" they became aware of these purported violations they not only loose their case but could face criminal prosecution for fraud as a result of manipulating this information with criminal intent. In the eyes of the Courts World over, omission and lies equate to the same thing.

How to make sure the code in question is SCO's?

stuart — Fri, 06 Jun 2003 22:42:52 +0000

a *VERY* good point made -- let's hope the powers that be take it up and run with it.

Notes from the SCO conference call

simlo — Fri, 06 Jun 2003 22:20:13 +0000

You can of date still find

kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-106.nosrc.rpm 10496 KB 09-05-2003 13:32:00
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-133.nosrc.rpm 11067 KB 09-05-2003 13:32:00
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm 11418 KB 09-05-2003 13:32:00
kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-82.nosrc.rpm 10228 KB 09-05-2003 13:32:00

on ftp.sco.com - notice no source.

Besides of that I can only find some kernel-addons src.rpm of 1Mb. to 2.4.13.

But distributing form does count for accepting GPL, doesn't it?
(Having stuff on a public ftp side does count as distributing, doesn't it?)

That said they can still hit IBM for putting the code in there, but the rest of us are covered by the GPL.

Imagine If...

EvilBill — Fri, 06 Jun 2003 20:05:05 +0000

Imagine if when the code in question came to light the original, non-SCO author recognized his comments and still had the email with the patch he sent to Linus.

If even one of the blocks in question (that SCO submits as evidence because it is in their source too) had this "feature", then they too would be infringing on a copyright. What would they do then?

So the GPL question was not answered?

NZheretic — Fri, 06 Jun 2003 19:05:14 +0000

a few quick notes

SCO's evidence of origin and Function dictates form

What proof did SCO present for the origin of both fragments of source code?

Was the SCO code originally from old BSD or Linux?

Who put the SCO source into Linux? - Was put there by Old Novell/SCO/Caldera in the first place?

What proof did SCO provide to show that the person had access to SCO's Unix sources?

The latter question raises another issue. The similarity is just as likely to be due to both operating systems performing the same role. Form is often directed by the function it performs. Function and variable names are often dictated by the API and common terminology.

Both the current Linux and Unix kernel developers have attended the similar university courses and read the same publicly available documentation. The works of W. Richard Stevens are very influential as a reference toward modern Unix and Linux and have dictated the implentation of APIs and TCP/IP stacks in both.

Levels towards DEF-CON 5

I don't believe that SCO could hope to even start a court case against IBM until the copyright in question has actually been transfered to the SCO Group. Any chance that Novell will hang tough?

Effectively this still means is that, before the SCO Group can even begin to sue Linux developers,vendors and users, SCO has to :-
1) Sue Novell - to tranfer SCO ownership of the copyrights ( forgetting the patents ) AND
2) Prove in a court of law that the source code in question did in fact originate from AT&T,Novell or SCO itself and was not copied from old BSD or Linux, AND
3) Sue IBM - to prove that IBM planted Unixware IP in Linux in breach of their contract with IBM, AND
4) Break the same GPL license in court of law that Caldera has been collectively developing Linux under since the groups forming in 1994 ( which predates even Caldera's purchase of SCO and old SCO's Monteray deal with IBM ) and that SCO made the choice to sell and distribute the code under.

SCO has to achive all this before even beginning to go after other Linux distributions, developers and users.

For (2), IBM under the terms of reasonable disclosure would have the right to demand copies of the source code going back to Version 7. IBM could then disclose the amount of Old BSD and Linux source code that has slipped into SCO's non-Linux products.

For (3), Unless the SCO Group get (1) and (2) it cannot precede with (3). Jim Stallings, the general manager of IBM Corp.'s Linux business recently stated: "I believe I am correct in saying there are no violations on any intellectual property issues [with Unix and SCO Group] and we will continue to support our Linux customers. It will be business as usual." Frankly IMO, given the quality of IBM's legal team, SCO don't stand a chance.

For (4), the GPL has never been succesfully challanged and has been recognised in a federal court. Even if SCO break the GPL, it means that EVERY developer who contibuted GPL'ed content to the Caldera/SCO distributions and is used with the CalderaLinux or SCO Group's Unixs, can persue a case against the SCO Group using the same loopholes the SCO Group has opened. Either way the SCO Group is F****D.

GPL clauses 5,6 and 7

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE [ with emphasis added ]

...
5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
....

Distributing the binaries source grants all recipants an implict license to use all the distributers IP within the terms of the GPL.

Also reread clause #7

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

Note the phrase "imposed on you". You cannot use paragraph seven as a right to deny an effective automatic patent( or trade secret etc ) unless imposed to do so by a third party.Since SCO claims ownership of the infringed IP in question, and Novell or IBM is highly unlikely to force SCO to stop distributing it in Linux, SCO cannot deny recipients full effective license to the IP,patents,trade secrets,copyrights in question.

The other important question

p9ing — Fri, 06 Jun 2003 18:55:42 +0000

They already seem to me to be moronically stupid.

IANAL and it seems to me if they were serious, this whole thing wouldn't be so dragged out. The only real way for them to force the issue is to bring this into the courts. In the mean time it is arguable that they are encouraging a buyout (IMO, not that dissimilar from extortion). If they get bought out, presumably the execs can retire with more green in their pockets. Again, just my opinion.