sco linux licensing legal actions - cockup or conspiracy

[Bill Vermillion]

In article <bfj4hf$b3r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>, kevin bailey
<deeval_oper@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>SCO's lawyers have dismayed most unix developers/sysadmins
>SCOworldwide and will now go under but what i want to know is...

>is it just a complete cockup by SCO in allowing their lawyers to
>try to make money from nothing instead of creating good product?

>or..

>is the hand of MS behind this somehow - certainly smacks of FUD
>tactics?

The interview that Darl has on Zdnet explains the SCO side fairly
well - even though some of Farber's question seem to be slighty
biased.

And I remember email exchanges from a couple of very knowledgable
people about the Unixware 2 SMP implementations - about 2 years
after SCO acquired Unix from Novell. It really was about the best
SMP around - about the only which scaled linearly.

I combine that older knowledge with what Darl said in the interview
about IBM and Project Montery - and his explanation makes sense.

I'd suggest going to zdnet and searching for Dan Farber's interview
with McBride. It about 10-15 minutes long and gives the SCO POV.

And I see that SCOGroup bought a startup called Vultus today - a
web services company.

I guess well have to wait until 2005 until this goes to trial to
see just who is right, who is wrong, and what lies in the
middle-ground.




--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

[Bellyeye]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

willjay wrote, on 24/07/03 00:52:

> SCO owns the rights to the code that IBM allegedly incorporated in to Linux.
> If this proves to be true then SCO is right to go to the ends of the earth
> to protect its interest.

Bollocks. They should identify the code in question so it can be
replaced if necessary. End of story.

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
begin GPG D694 FB76 12FC 94A7 4557 9951 8734 A4AC 7AA4 141E
Ian Smith
Worst . . . signature . . . ever !

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - [url]http://enigmail.mozdev.org[/url]

iD8DBQE/HnNdhzSkrHqkFB4RAkHwAKCp7/qLt0WchWKwggOYrcHzM+TUKgCfSjlu
AN85U5+zyDJ8b92814GqN8g=
=LhWq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[willjay]

SCO owns the rights to the code that IBM allegedly incorporated in to Linux.
If this proves to be true then SCO is right to go to the ends of the earth
to protect its interest.

wj

"kevin bailey" <deeval_oper@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:bfj4hf$b3r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...

> SCO's lawyers have dismayed most unix developers/sysadmins worldwide and
> SCO will now go under but what i want to know is...
>
> is it just a complete cockup by SCO in allowing their lawyers to try to
> make money from nothing instead of creating good product?
>
> or..
>
> is the hand of MS behind this somehow - certainly smacks of FUD tactics?
>
> kev bailey

[walterbyrd]

Maybe it's a conspiracy by the Mormon Church? Sound crazy? Consider
this, it is begining to look like:

Vultus
Owned by SCO
owned by Caldera
owned by Angel Investors
owned by Mormon Church
------------------

It is difficult to know for sure. Here is what I am piecing together:

It was recently announced that SCO "bought" Vultus. A strange
aquisition, since both companies are controlled by the Canopy Group,
and both companies reside in the same building. Later this press
release was issued. There was supposed to be a revised release later,
but I haven't seen one.
------------------------

Tuesday July 22, 10:01 AM EDT

Jul 22, 2003 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- We are advised by The SCO
Group that journalists and other readers should disregard the news
release, SCO (SCOX)Expands Web Services Strategy With Vultus
Technology and Asset Acquisition, issued earlier today over PR
Newswire. The SCO Group said a revised release will be issued later
today.

SOURCE The SCO Group

URL: [url]http://www.SCO.com[/url]
[url]http://www.prnewswire.com[/url]

Copyright (C) 2003 PR Newswire. All rights reserved.

[url]http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-203p3955&feed=cmt&date=[/url]
20030722
------------------------

Then I came across this:

>>it is highly likely that Mormons are involved in both Canopy and SCO

– but that's to be expected for companies headquartered in Utah. Three
of SCO's board members are graduates of Brigham Young University, and
Darl McBride worked closely with Stephen Covey before joining SCO<<

[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32872[/url]

>>Many references are made to the Canopy Group but who controls them?

A somewhat dark organization called Angel Investors who as it turns
out are not publicly traded and are owned outright by the Mormon
Church<<

-- post on lwn.net

---------------------------

I don't know. You tell me.





kevin bailey <deeval_oper@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<bfj4hf$b3r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>...

> SCO's lawyers have dismayed most unix developers/sysadmins worldwide and
> SCO will now go under but what i want to know is...
>
> is it just a complete cockup by SCO in allowing their lawyers to try to
> make money from nothing instead of creating good product?
>
> or..
>
> is the hand of MS behind this somehow - certainly smacks of FUD tactics?
>
> kev bailey

[walterbyrd]

Maybe it's a conspiracy by the Mormon Church? Sound crazy? Consider
this, it is begining to look like:

Vultus
Owned by SCO
owned by Caldera
owned by Angel Investors
owned by Mormon Church
------------------

It is difficult to know for sure. Here is what I am piecing together:

It was recently announced that SCO "bought" Vultus. A strange
aquisition, since both companies are controlled by the Canopy Group,
and both companies reside in the same building. Later this press
release was issued. There was supposed to be a revised release later,
but I haven't seen one.
------------------------

Tuesday July 22, 10:01 AM EDT

Jul 22, 2003 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- We are advised by The SCO
Group that journalists and other readers should disregard the news
release, SCO (SCOX)Expands Web Services Strategy With Vultus
Technology and Asset Acquisition, issued earlier today over PR
Newswire. The SCO Group said a revised release will be issued later
today.

SOURCE The SCO Group

URL: [url]http://www.SCO.com[/url]
[url]http://www.prnewswire.com[/url]

Copyright (C) 2003 PR Newswire. All rights reserved.

[url]http://money.excite.com/jsp/nw/nwdt_ge.jsp?news_id=cmt-203p3955&feed=cmt&date=[/url]
20030722
------------------------

Then I came across this:

>>it is highly likely that Mormons are involved in both Canopy and SCO

– but that's to be expected for companies headquartered in Utah. Three
of SCO's board members are graduates of Brigham Young University, and
Darl McBride worked closely with Stephen Covey before joining SCO<<

[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32872[/url]

>>Many references are made to the Canopy Group but who controls them?

A somewhat dark organization called Angel Investors who as it turns
out are not publicly traded and are owned outright by the Mormon
Church<<

-- post on lwn.net

---------------------------

I don't know. You tell me.





kevin bailey <deeval_oper@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<bfj4hf$b3r$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk>...

> SCO's lawyers have dismayed most unix developers/sysadmins worldwide and
> SCO will now go under but what i want to know is...
>
> is it just a complete cockup by SCO in allowing their lawyers to try to
> make money from nothing instead of creating good product?
>
> or..
>
> is the hand of MS behind this somehow - certainly smacks of FUD tactics?
>
> kev bailey

[Jim Sullivan]

"Bill Campbell" <bill@celestial.com> wrote in message
news:20030722174557.A19040@barryg.mi.celestial.com ...

> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:52:43PM -0400, willjay wrote:

> >SCO owns the rights to the code that IBM allegedly incorporated in to

Linux.

> >If this proves to be true then SCO is right to go to the ends of the

earth

> >to protect its interest.

>
> Much of what I've read on this topic raises serious issues as to what SCO
> owns, and what it doesn't. One of the best is Eric Raymond's:
> [url]http://www.opensource.org/[/url]

well Bill, I've known you and posted with you for years, but I thought ER's
"history" was flawed, inaccurate, and completely subjective. In one
paragraph he's dissing SCO's rights under their license and in the next
paragraph, he's advocating the rights of Stallman's license. You can't
claim protection under one license and ignore the rights and restrictions of
the other license.

Yes, much of the historical UNIX code was available, but unless you had a
license, you had no right to view it. If you had a license, you had to take
the appropriate steps to protect the code and intellectual property. No
one, not AT&T, not Novell, not The Santa Cruz Operation and not Caldera has
released the code into the public. On the contrary, all have made
significant efforts to perserve their IP.

IBM had a duty, as a source code licensee and due to some of the contractual
obligations around Project Monterey, to preserve Caldera's IP. If they
failed in this duty, then they deserve to face the penalties. The one thing
the Linux communitiy has not done, in response to this issue, is address the
root of the problem. Who will indemnify the customer in cases where IP is
wrongly placed into the final product? Who will guarantee that the code
represents original works by the author, and not some derivative work that
the author does not have the appropriate rights to?

Free software, under a variety of licenses and copylefts, is all about
intellectual property rights and what the owner of code is allows third
parties to do. Unfortunately, many of those who have embraced Open Source
and Free Software have chosen to selectively enforce IP.

[Whoever]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Jim Sullivan wrote:

>
>
> IBM had a duty, as a source code licensee and due to some of the contractual
> obligations around Project Monterey, to preserve Caldera's IP. If they
> failed in this duty, then they deserve to face the penalties. The one thing
> the Linux communitiy has not done, in response to this issue, is address the
> root of the problem. Who will indemnify the customer in cases where IP is
> wrongly placed into the final product? Who will guarantee that the code
> represents original works by the author, and not some derivative work that
> the author does not have the appropriate rights to?

You seem to be assuming that IBM has improperly put SCO's code in the
kernel. There seems to be little evidence for this and SCO certainly has
not provided it. But most of all, the amendment to the contract that
clearly states that IBM owns derviative works written by or for IBM would
appear to make it IBM's IP not SCO's.

>
> Free software, under a variety of licenses and copylefts, is all about
> intellectual property rights and what the owner of code is allows third
> parties to do. Unfortunately, many of those who have embraced Open Source
> and Free Software have chosen to selectively enforce IP.

I don't think there is any evidence of this. Firstly it is very important
to understand that SCO is threatening COPYRIGHT violation against Linux
users and TRADE SECRET violation against IBM. The two are very different.
Now, if IBM has violated some of SCO's trade secrets, they are no longer
trade secrets. Unless SCO actually owns the copyright and has not done
anything to license it, then end users are free to use the code.

The point is that it may be quite legal to take advantage of someone
else's error in violating a trade secret. This is not selective
enforcement, it is merely application of the law.

Finally you assert that SCO has been careful to preserve their trade
secrets. If so, why can you download the kernel from SCO's own ftp site?
This shows very clearly that if the code ever was SCO's trade secret, it
is no longer a trade secret. FYI, the copy of the kernel that is available
form SCO;s site clearly states that it is licensed under the GPL, so
one of the following is true:

1. SCO has licensed "their" code under the GPL
2. The GPL does not apply and SCO is violating the copyright of hundreds
of kernel authors.
3. The GPL does not apply but SCO has given away any copyright they ever
had to the code.
4. There never was any non-GPL SCO code in the kernel.

The third option is quite interesting: imagine for a moment that the RIAA
makes a new artist's song available for free download with no restriction
from their FTP site. Do you think they could sue anyone who downloaded
it? Now imagine that an artist records a song and makes it availble for
donwload, but identifies someone else as the author. Copyright law
requires identification of the author in order to apply. Do you think the
author can assert any copyright control over the song?

If the GPL does not apply, perhaps it is SCO who is playing fast and loose
with other people's IP!

> >

>

[Bill Vermillion]

In article <6bWcnVePy4q98L6iXTWJhQ@comcast.com>,
Jim Sullivan <seattlecurler@comcast.net> wrote:

>"Bill Campbell" <bill@celestial.com> wrote in message
>news:20030722174557.A19040@barryg.mi.celestial.co m...
>

>> On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 07:52:43PM -0400, willjay wrote:

>> >SCO owns the rights to the code that IBM allegedly
>> >incorporated in to Linux. If this proves to be true then
>> >SCO is right to go to the ends of the earth to protect its
>> >interest.

>> Much of what I've read on this topic raises serious issues as
>> to what SCO owns, and what it doesn't. One of the best is Eric
>> Raymond's: [url]http://www.opensource.org/[/url]

>well Bill, I've known you and posted with you for years, but I
>thought ER's "history" was flawed, inaccurate, and completely
>subjective.

I've found that many places/people citing the 'history' seemed not
to have done any research. I've noted a few instances in O'Reilly's
book 'Open Sources' - which is basically a compendium of article by
the 'names' in the Open Source movement where the facts are quite
correct. IOW it's just information handed down and repeated and
sometimes modified with no one taking the time to check the facts.

....

>Yes, much of the historical UNIX code was available, but unless
>you had a license, you had no right to view it.

What do you mean 'was' available. The oldest code is still
available on CD - the source tree in browsable format is still
there. And the licenses for the 'historical' versions are still
there. This is the 32V and prior. Code post that era is not.

The license I have excludes Sys III, and Sys V and successors, so
I'm guessing your 'historical' is more akin to modern history than
ancient history :-)

....

>IBM had a duty, as a source code licensee and due to some of the
>contractual obligations around Project Monterey, to preserve
>Caldera's IP. If they failed in this duty, then they deserve
>to face the penalties. The one thing the Linux communitiy has
>not done, in response to this issue, is address the root of the
>problem. Who will indemnify the customer in cases where IP is
>wrongly placed into the final product?

I have seen only two places where the company said they will
indemnify the user - SCOgroup/Caldera and SUN Microsystems.
And the SCOGroup/Caldera one is not currently available for DL.

That leaves about 90 distributions out there where it is
questionable. [I'm guessing about 90 as that's close to what I
see at one major site - down from about 180 of two years ago]

Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com