LWN: Comments on "SCO loses again"

SCO loses again

paulj — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 03:05:48 +0000

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..

SCO loses again

branden — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:51:43 +0000

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...

Can Novell release Unix as free software?

dlang — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 17:04:17 +0000

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.

Can Novell release Unix as free software?

james — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 08:54:41 +0000

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?

vonbrand — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:24:27 +0000

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.

SCO loses again

pr1268 — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:02:35 +0000

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.

Can Novell release Unix as free software?

james — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:59:36 +0000

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!).

SCO loses again

felixfix — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 02:48:39 +0000

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

ncm — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 01:50:08 +0000

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.