SCO, Open Source and the Un*x source code

[Bill Campbell]

On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
....

>Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
>encumbered code within to do it easily.

Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).

On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
anything in the kernel.

Bill
--
INTERNET: [email]bill@Celestial.COM[/email] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: [url]http://www.celestial.com/[/url]

``One of the common failings among honorable people is a failure to
appreciate how thoroughly dishonorable some other people can be, and how
dangerous it is to trust them.''
- Thomas Sowell

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:

>On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
>...

>>Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
>>encumbered code within to do it easily.

>Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).

>On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
>systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
>this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
>anything in the kernel.

I doubt it. I know there are a lot of Linux zealots who would like
that to be the case, but my bet is that even if the situation is
exactly as they'd like it to be, a court would find that they gave
up nothing.

While the GPL is a wonderful concept, courts tend to be very protective
of property right. I am, of course, not a lawyer, but I am a realist,
and reality is that property interests will likely win.

Not that I would terribly mind being wrong..

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>> Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:

>> >On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
>> >...
>> >>Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
>> >>encumbered code within to do it easily.

>>

>> >Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).

>>

>> >On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
>> >systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
>> >this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
>> >anything in the kernel.

>>
>> I doubt it. I know there are a lot of Linux zealots who would like
>> that to be the case, but my bet is that even if the situation is
>> exactly as they'd like it to be, a court would find that they gave
>> up nothing.

>Given that I donwloaded a copy of the kernel from SCO's site YESTERDAY, I
>really doubt that SCO can enforce anything more than their rights under
>the GPL.

>Don't forget, if SCO makes distributions of GPL code (as it does though
>it's ftp site) yet claims the code is not GPL'd, then SCO is violating the
>kernel contributors' (INCLUDING IBM's) copyrights.

So you and a lot of Slashdot folks say. But it is isn't going to be
decided my a majority vote of the great unwashed. Even if the GPL was
seen as valid in this context (yet to be seen), you'd likely have to
show that SCO knowingly released the code - iow, that they were
aware of their code being in there.

It's not as simple as the roaring Slashdotters think it is. But then
what is?

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Whoever]

On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>
> So you and a lot of Slashdot folks say. But it is isn't going to be
> decided my a majority vote of the great unwashed. Even if the GPL was
> seen as valid in this context (yet to be seen), you'd likely have to
> show that SCO knowingly released the code - iow, that they were
> aware of their code being in there.

So, SCO s going to say that they did not know "their" code is in the
kernel? That might have been true some time in 2002, but they can hardly
make such an argument after they initiated a lawsuit.

And please note, the GPL clearly covers the question of what you must do
if you cannot abide by the GPL: you have to stop distributing the GPL'd
code.

If the GPL is not valid, then normal copyright law kicks in and SCO has no
right to reproduce the linux kernel code.

So, either:
1. SCO has GPL'd "their" code or:
2. SCO has violated the copyrights of the hundreds of linux kernel
developers (including IBM) or:
3. SCO does not own the copyright to any code in the Linux kernel

Care to suggest a 4th option? Oh yes, I have it:
4. SCO copied Linux code into SCO's kernel. Well, this is not really an
option because it addreses a different question (that is: does SCO
actually own the copyright to any code in the Linux kernel).

Note that the FSF's lawyer seems to believe option 1 is true. Not that the
opinion of one lawyer is terribly significant, but it is probably more
significant that the collective opinion of the "great unwashed."

It is important to differentiate between the trade secret claims against
IBM versus the copyright claims against Linux in general.

I'm just waiting to see IBM's next significant step.

[Bill Vermillion]

In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307211110330.12657-100000@c941211-a>,
Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
>

>> Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:

>> >On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
>> >...
>> >>Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
>> >>encumbered code within to do it easily.

>>

>> >Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).

>>

>> >On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
>> >systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
>> >this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
>> >anything in the kernel.

>>
>> I doubt it. I know there are a lot of Linux zealots who would like
>> that to be the case, but my bet is that even if the situation is
>> exactly as they'd like it to be, a court would find that they gave
>> up nothing.

>Given that I donwloaded a copy of the kernel from SCO's site
>YESTERDAY, I really doubt that SCO can enforce anything more
>than their rights under the GPL.

>Don't forget, if SCO makes distributions of GPL code (as it does
>though it's ftp site) yet claims the code is not GPL'd, then
>SCO is violating the kernel contributors' (INCLUDING IBM's)
>copyrights.

And SCO did stop distributing their version of Linux. You can't
accidentally give your copyright away so at the most SCO would be
violating some GLP licensing. I guess Stallman will have to sue
them :-)

>

--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com

[Whoever]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Bill Vermillion wrote:

> In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307211110330.12657-100000@c941211-a>,
> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

> >On Sat, 19 Jul 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
> >

> >> Bill Campbell <bill@celestial.com> wrote:
> >> >On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:51:08PM +0000, [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:
> >> >...
> >> >>Even if SCO wanted to do that, I suspect there is too much royalty
> >> >>encumbered code within to do it easily.
> >>
> >> >Isn't SCO claiming that they own all the Unix IP in the world :-).
> >>
> >> >On the other hand, since (a) SCO/Caldera built, sold, and distributed Linux
> >> >systems including fairly major patches to the kernels, and (b) they did
> >> >this under the terms of the GPL, SCO voluntarily gave up their IP rights on
> >> >anything in the kernel.
> >>
> >> I doubt it. I know there are a lot of Linux zealots who would like
> >> that to be the case, but my bet is that even if the situation is
> >> exactly as they'd like it to be, a court would find that they gave
> >> up nothing.

>

> >Given that I donwloaded a copy of the kernel from SCO's site
> >YESTERDAY, I really doubt that SCO can enforce anything more
> >than their rights under the GPL.

>

> >Don't forget, if SCO makes distributions of GPL code (as it does
> >though it's ftp site) yet claims the code is not GPL'd, then
> >SCO is violating the kernel contributors' (INCLUDING IBM's)
> >copyrights.

>
> And SCO did stop distributing their version of Linux. You can't
> accidentally give your copyright away so at the most SCO would be
> violating some GLP licensing. I guess Stallman will have to sue
> them :-)

No, they did not stop. They may have stopped selling their Caldera Linux
distro, but you can still download the kernel source from their ftp site.
That constitutes "distribution".

Even so, they did not stop selling their own linux distro until some time
AFTER they initiated their lawsuit, which would have to be a significant
time after the "discovered" "their" IP in the kernel.

So, I think the "inadvertant" distribution argument will fly like a lead
baloon. They knowingly distributed the kernel with "their" code in it.

Remember also they have not alleged any SCO IP is in anything other than
the kernel (which is technically the only part that can be accurately
described as "Linux") and specifically, they have not alleged that any GNU
code violates their IP, so I am not sure that Stallman would have any
standing to sue. Which is incidentally why they will not be able to sue
Linux users: since one of the contract amendments makes it clear that IBM
owns any derivative works done by or for IBM: IBM is thus the copyright
holder of the code such as NUMA, RCU, JFS, etc. and only the copyright
holder can sue for copyright infringement.

>

> >

>
>
>

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>>
>> So you and a lot of Slashdot folks say. But it is isn't going to be
>> decided my a majority vote of the great unwashed. Even if the GPL was
>> seen as valid in this context (yet to be seen), you'd likely have to
>> show that SCO knowingly released the code - iow, that they were
>> aware of their code being in there.

>So, SCO s going to say that they did not know "their" code is in the
>kernel? That might have been true some time in 2002, but they can hardly
>make such an argument after they initiated a lawsuit.

At which time they stopped selling Linux. Why do you think that was?

And please, I don't want to hear about how their FTP sight is still
distributing patches. I hear enough of this nonsense. It's
unimportant.

>And please note, the GPL clearly covers the question of what you must do
>if you cannot abide by the GPL: you have to stop distributing the GPL'd
>code.

And you are convinced that a court is going to agree with you that
the GPL is valid in that context. As much as I'd like to see that be true
(not because of this lawsuit, but in general), it just may not happen.
I've said it before: courts favor property rights.

>If the GPL is not valid, then normal copyright law kicks in and SCO has no
>right to reproduce the linux kernel code.

Yadda, yadda. You think I haven't heard this before? Once again:
IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU THINK.

My bet is that property rights will prevail. SCO may or may not be
able to prove that IBM put their code into Linux, but no harm will
come to SCO's IP in either case. As you are conveniently anonymous,
when the dust all settles here you can come back with yet another made
up name and pretend you knew all along what would happen. That's
just one of the many reasons why I wish I were smart enough to
disengage from this very foolish conversation.


--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Bill Campbell]

On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 06:20:25AM +0000, Whoever wrote:
.....

>Remember also they have not alleged any SCO IP is in anything other than
>the kernel (which is technically the only part that can be accurately
>described as "Linux") and specifically, they have not alleged that any GNU
>code violates their IP, so I am not sure that Stallman would have any
>standing to sue. Which is incidentally why they will not be able to sue
>Linux users....

The hook here is that the FSF has is probably that Caldera/SCO published
and distributed(s) the Linux kernel under the GPL which should bring
everything Caldera/SCO put in subject to the GPL.

>Linux users: since one of the contract amendments makes it clear that IBM
>owns any derivative works done by or for IBM: IBM is thus the copyright
>holder of the code such as NUMA, RCU, JFS, etc. and only the copyright
>holder can sue for copyright infringement.

There's ample documentation that Caldera/SCO knowingly contributed to this
development process, specifically to bring it into Linux. One of their
developers in Germany was heavily involved in the JFS and other Linux
kernel projects -- as part of his job with Caldera/SCO.

Of course this won't keep the land sharks from bleeding SCO dry, and
costing the others involved a ton of money.

Bill
--
INTERNET: [email]bill@Celestial.COM[/email] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP: camco!bill PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX: (206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: [url]http://www.celestial.com/[/url]

``I don't make jokes, I just watch the Government and report the facts...''
Will Rogers

[brian]

[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> Whoever wrote:
> (bunch of crapola deleted, same old Slashdot nonsense that
> I am not going to waste any more time on)

>> But, if they can't get any money from IBM or Linux users, then
>> SCO will be bankrupt, so the integrity of SCO's property
>> rights will be moot.

> I doubt it. They still get very significant revenues from OSR5
> and Unixware licenses, and while I'm not sure about their long
> term prospects, I would bet they'll do just fine over the next
> few years at least.

I wouldn't be so sure.

SCO has been very forthcoming in it's SEC filings since they are being
investigated for improprieties.

In those filings SCO made it quite clear that their market share is in
decline and the upgrade cycle isn't producing much income.

SCO likes to talk about 2.5 million users worldwide but I think that
represents every license they have ever sold.

Nope, if this little ploy fails to generate any cashflow, SCO will cease to
be within a year. They may be acquiring web tool companies now but they are
paying with stock, not real money. And as we all know their stock is
artificially high based on a long-shot bet mentality, not real value. If
you look at the actual volume of stock traded it is miniscule compared to
RedHat (about 1/8th) and doesn't even constitute noise on an IBM scale.

Here is a fact - SCO still refuses to reveal what code that appears in Linux
belongs to them. We only have their word for it because their little show
and tell sessions are totally useless.

Now SCO declares that the offending code can not be removed - we have only
their word for that as well.

I believe SCO and their pet lawyer David Boise are a pack of thieves trying
to stick up a much more successful business model after they have failed in
their own.

Time will tell.

8^)

Brian
Network Services

[Whoever]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> In comp.unix.sco.misc Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>
> (bunch of crapola deleted, same old Slashdot nonsense that I am
> not going to waste any more time on)

In other words: you don't have an answer to my comments!

>

> >But, if they can't get any money from IBM or Linux users, then SCO will be
> >bankrupt, so the integrity of SCO's property rights will be moot.

>
> I doubt it. They still get very significant revenues from OSR5 and Unixware
> licenses, and while I'm not sure about their long term prospects, I
> would bet they'll do just fine over the next few years at least.

This is a company that has not made a profit until their last quarter and
their major revenue during that quarter is highly unlikely to be recurring
over the long term.

Also, have you considered the possibility that IBM may counter-sue? SCO
doesn't have the right to revoke IBM's license to sell AIX and so in
attempting to do so, they may have created a huge legal mess for
themselves. Furthermore, IBM has a huge patent portfolio -- what if IBM
could find a patent or patents that Unixware is violating and disrupt
or stop SCO's ability to sell Unixware?

Heck, were are talking about a company that did not even think to register
the "scosource.com" domain name!

They have made one smart move: buy companies with their inflated stock --
if the Unix products end up with zero value the company may still have a
revenue stream from those people who are gullible enough to accept SCO
stock for their company.

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>> In comp.unix.sco.misc Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>>
>> (bunch of crapola deleted, same old Slashdot nonsense that I am
>> not going to waste any more time on)

>In other words: you don't have an answer to my comments!

I've answered your "comments" before. You haven't said anything new,
and quite frankly I think this kind of comment by an anonymous poster
isn't worth crap just because of that. You hide behind anonymity,
you get no respect from me.

>Also, have you considered the possibility that IBM may counter-sue? SCO
>doesn't have the right to revoke IBM's license to sell AIX and so in
>attempting to do so, they may have created a huge legal mess for
>themselves. Furthermore, IBM has a huge patent portfolio -- what if IBM
>could find a patent or patents that Unixware is violating and disrupt
>or stop SCO's ability to sell Unixware?

Sure. All kinds of things like this could happen.

I've put my opinions at [url]http://aplawrence.com/Blog/267.html[/url] and
am done with this thread.

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Whoever]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

> >On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>

> >> In comp.unix.sco.misc Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
> >>
> >> (bunch of crapola deleted, same old Slashdot nonsense that I am
> >> not going to waste any more time on)

>

> >In other words: you don't have an answer to my comments!

>
> I've answered your "comments" before. You haven't said anything new,

You have never explained why you don't think that downloading a source RPM
does not mean that SCO has given away their rights. Here's the info from
that package:
[xxxx@spare ~]$ rpm -q -i -p linux-2.4.13-21S_from_sco.src.rpm
Name : linux Relocations: (not relocateable)
Version : 2.4.13 Vendor: Caldera
International, Inc.
Release : 21S Build Date: Sat 03 May 2003
07:17:07 AM PDT
Install date: (not installed) Build Host:
build311.ps.asia.caldera.com
Group : System/Kernel Source RPM: (none)
Size : 27986389 License: GPL
Packager : Ashish Kalra <ashishk@sco.com>
URL : [url]http://www.kernel.org/[/url]
Summary : Linux kernel sources and compiled kernel image.
Description :
Linux kernel sources and compiled kernel images.
B-


Note, SCO built it on May 03 THIS YEAR. Note that SCO licensed it UNDER
THE GPL. SO what you are saying is that a court is going to:
1. Ignore SCO's actions and
2. Invalidate the GPL and
3. Ignore the intellectual property rights of all the other Linux kernel
developers.

You keep harping on about courts siding with the rights of IP owners, but
you have never addressed the issue that in order to allow SCO to escape
from the GPL, the court has to trample over the rights of thousands of
other IP owners. Why should a court favor the rights of one IP owner with
dubious claims to ownership over and above the rights of hundreds of
others with clear ownership to the IP?