Novell Claims Ownership of UNIX System V 1179
Bruce Perens writes:
"We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of the big lie behind it.
"This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995 agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.
"In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their sham campaign against Linux.
"Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the Linux and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagiarism. Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
"It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to AT&T's original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers in a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel out of this one.
"Microsoft executives also have egg on their faces. The company self-servingly rushed to buy an SCO license one business day after the threat letter, bringing a senior attorney to the office on a Sunday to tell the press how much Microsoft values intellectual property. Microsoft's management could have taken the time to analyze SCO's claims, if the company had wanted this license for practical and technical reasons. Their decision to buy when they did must have been motivated by a desire to add to SCO's fear campaign. Of course they'll grab any opportunity to spread fear about Linux, but this time Microsoft bought a pig in a poke.
"SCO management, if they insist on standing in the way of a train, could still claim that software they developed in the years since 1995 is being infringed by the Open Source developers. That claim, always a dubious one, will be difficult to take seriously now that their prevarication throughout this campaign has come to light. SCO would be well advised to drop their suit against IBM in exchange for IBM's agreement not to counter-sue. But IBM might not feel that charitable toward SCO.
"In contrast to SCO, Novell's made a friend among the Free Software developers. We're always happy to see people using our software. But a real partnership between an IT vendor and our community is an equal partnership, with the company donating services and new software in exchange for the value it receives. Novell has already placed important software under Open Source licenses. Today, the company has done us a tremendous service, by stomping upon an obnoxious parasite."
Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Finally, SCO being put in its place. I just wonder why this took so long for Novell to bring up.
"you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
My feeling on that is rather simple, actually. They had to make for 100% damn sure that they were right in what they were gonna say to the public. They've probably dumped millions into lawyers over the past few weeks / months to make for SURE that SCO is / was wrong. THAT is probably what took so long.
Or maybe it's just they're not doing all that well since M$ took over the Network arena.
Oh... right, I forgot... M$ has been giving money to SCO...
Hmmm...
could still be a problem (Score:2, Interesting)
I remember long ago, when Richard Strawlman warned that the LZW algorithm (used by compress) wasn't free. So he wrote zip, which was free. People laughed at him at the time, but when Unisys acquired the LZW patent and started charging fees, he was universially acknowledged as a genius.
Likewise, it's probably best to migrate away from Unix since Novell could still bring up infringement claims. HuRD or Minix are probably the best alternatives.
What did Microsoft buy ? (Score:5, Interesting)
And most importantly, how much did they buy it for ?
Learn your metaphors - cat out of the bag!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
"Letting the cat out of the bag" refers to the other traditional way of selling a "pig in a poke" that is really a cat. The purchaser isn't expected to look inside the bag until they've gotten home out of the risk the piglet will escape. When they do look, they find out the truth.
So...Microsoft DID NOT buy a pig in a poke.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
Because SCO's earnings call is THIS morning.
This isn't just a smackdown, this -- today's release, the Perens-for-the-Prosecution piece on Page One of SlashDot, along with the divulging of the Conference Call Phone Number (nice one, that!) -- is a highly-coordinated strike meant to drop a tactical nuke down their shorts. This is calculated to not just damage SCO but make their Corporate Headquarters a Dead Zone for the next Three Thousad Years.
Nice Work, everyone! Proud to be a small part of it, even if only as a witness.
Re:Finally (Score:2, Interesting)
Why did Novell wait til now? (Score:4, Interesting)
How the heck did SCO buy "Unix" without buying the copyrights? Why have they been in discussion (dispute?) between SCO and Novell for the past several months? Novell's letter has qualifiers like "to our knowledge" when it says SCO doesn't own the copyrights. It sounds like the Novell-SCO agreement has been flawed all along and nobody knows what the real situation is.
I think there are yet more layers to this madness waiting to be unpeeled.
Linux is safe, even if IBM is not (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Learn your metaphors - cat out of the bag!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Thanks
Bruce
eniac (Score:5, Interesting)
The exact same thing happened when Sperry (the company that bough Eckert and Mauchly's company, which made UNIVAC) was sued for rights to the ENIAC patent (that Mauchly and Eckert at the time held). No one had contested that Eckert and Mauchly had designed the first electronic computer, but instead had hooked onto details in the patent file. Ironically, IBM was in a very similar position as it is with the SCO/Linux problem. IBM has cooperated with open source to a great degree, just as it had licensed Eckert and Mauchly's products and was seen as a supported of the "dark side" by SCO, just as they were seen by those trying to strip E & M of their patents.
History really has a funny way of repeating itself
Novell the champ? Or the new SCO? (Score:3, Interesting)
Novells the champ I suppose here, it will win enormous support form the Linux community on this issue if it can really torpedo SCO, but the big fish is Microsoft. Their link to SCO absolutely must be revealed, I think IBM Suse Redhat Novell and others will have an easy time suing Microsoft back on this if the connection is properly revealed.
This issue must be shut ASAP, because it might be causing jitters among ignorant corporate decision makers and consultants. People like Linus should come out to the public after SCO's claims have been squashed, to get the word out that Linux's license is robust and will not drown the way some other UNIXen did.
And finally it would make Novell a hero to release the whole UNIX under an opensource license, preferably GPL, since they're contemplating moving to Linux anyway. These guys have been really innovative for the Internet and the practically invented the LAN for the masses, they should be supported. Their support in these tough times shows the principles behind the free software movement are not simply financially motivated, but are based on ideals that UNIX users and developers anywhere in the world can relate to. Microsoft couldnt fight that.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SCO replies (Score:2, Interesting)
Founder confusion? (Score:4, Interesting)
You would think he would have warned the SCO Group board about their own stupidity, no?
Re:SCO replies (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless, of course, what SCO means by having the "contract rights" to Unix involves having the exclusive right to license the source (but if so, why didn't they say so?). And, how exactly would posessing the exclusive right to license be different from copyright itself?
Have SCO stolen code from Linux ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Finally (Score:2, Interesting)
SCO profit due to UNIX licensing (Score:5, Interesting)
Their stock price is down today, so maybe The Street finally sees that the reality of the situation is that their operating systems division is failing. It is ironic that SCO made a profit selling licences to something that Novell now claims it 'owns' but I really cannot make sense of this mess any more. So maybe I just misundersand how SCO can sell licenses to something that Novell opwns the copyrights to.
Stock Performance (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO 's Stock Performance [cnet.com]
I think it's high time that the SEC got involved here.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights.
However, in the press release about the stock holder's conference call, they state this:
The SCO Group (NASDAQ: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system...
Sounds like SCO is doing a little backpedaling in the Yahoo article. :-)
Re:SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Actions (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just pure unadulterated @#$!!. SCO sent out threatening letters to 1500 companies many of whom don't have contracts with SCO. If this case is about breach of contract then what in the heck is SCO doing intimidating these customers.
The fact of the matter is that SCO is simply trying to run up their share price so that SCO management can make a buck on the implosion of their company.
Lying to their shareholders is an SEC Offense (Score:5, Interesting)
If this is true (and it almost certainly is
And, as others have pointed out, the civil damages and liability resulting from this fraudulant deception against SCO and those personally involved in the deception could well be quite staggaring. These people could well end up broke and in prison.
This, of course, assumes the government actually chooses to enforce the law this time. As we saw with the Microsoft Anti-Trust case, that is certainly not a given.
Regardless, however, it does vindicate GNU/Linux and free software in the extreme, and it does demonstrate the depths of depravity that Microsoft (who was quite transparently pushing this and financing it via a license they clearly weren't required to get) and its shills, such as SCO, will sink to.
The best revenge is living well, indeed, living better than those who have wronged you. Even if SCO were to get off scott free (unlikely), clearly, anyone running FreeBSD (which could theoretically have been targeted with a similiar FUD campaign) and GNU/Linux are living quite well (in the technical arena at least), certainly much better than the poor sops running Unixware and SCO, and arguably quite a bit better than those running the product of SCO's master in Redmond. We should take joy in that fact (but not let it slow down the counter suits and prosecutions from those who were more directly wronged by SCO's illegal and unconscionable behavior).
Re:Stock Performance (Score:2, Interesting)
Why?
SCO announces $1bn (that's 10 times current market cap.) dollar law suit against IBM; you think there aren't a few traders who think it is worth a punt?
Re:could still be a problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Novell's letter suggested that they thought the claims of code theft were bullshit, which doesn't exactly leave them an opening to sue later.
Likewise, it's probably best to migrate away from Unix since Novell could still bring up infringement claims. HuRD or Minix are probably the best alternatives.
Do you mean "migrate away from Linux"? Besides, Hurd and Minix are also Unix clones. Hurd isn't fully functional yet, and Minix was never meant to be anything more than a toy OS. Migrating to the BSDs would be the best bet, but the only real protection would be writing a new OS from scratch in a clean-room environment.
SCO's response to Novell (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO Statement on Novell's Recent Actions
Wednesday May 28, 10:15 am ET
LINDON, Utah, May 28
SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor.
Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
SCO's lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees.
We formed SCOsource in January 2003 to enforce our UNIX rights and we intend to aggressively continue in this successful path of operation.
Re:SCO replies (Score:5, Interesting)
This wouldn't make it a copyright violation, but a contract violation that could have a serious ripple effect. We can't know until Novell or SCO releases the relevant terms of the contract.
Re:Why did Novell wait til now? (Score:3, Interesting)
Novell had several famous flame-outs when beating their chest about upcoming products. They finally put the hammer down and are now very quiet. Even as a CNE, it's difficult to find out about upcoming projects until they reach public beta status. Perhaps this culture has permeated Novell so well that they were able to keep this quiet as well?
One reason that they waited was to verify who owned what. All of those agreements happend 3 (4?) CEO's ago and most of the people who orchestrated the deal are probably long gone (on both sides).
Another is that the SCOX earnings call is today. So it's a timing thing to damage SCO's stock.
How the heck did SCO buy "Unix" without buying the copyrights?
From the SCO response: SCO® owns the contract rights to the UNIX® operating system. So it seems that SCO has the right to license the code to UNIX vendors (or other interested parties). But the patents and copyrights remain with Novell. This does make me curious about who would have a gripe about SysV code in Linux, though. I guess if SCO (and only SCO) has the rights to license SysV code, then it's SCO. It does seem to be an awkward agreement, though.
I think there are yet more layers to this madness waiting to be unpeeled.
I think you misspelled "lawyers"
So if.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone know how much revenue they derive from licensing the source code?
Re:Learn your metaphors - cat out of the bag!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
When you buy a pig in a poke, you had better head straight home with it, and have a sturdy pen ready for the pig.
Re:SCO replies (Score:3, Interesting)
Wrong, McBride claimed it was SCO's intellectual property. And they've been steadily escalating their claims to encompass the entire Linux community, not just IBM. Even if they do back down now, the damage to their case has already been done, and as others have pointed out this leaves them open to multiple lawsuits, including from the shareholders, and SEC action.
Re:Conference Call (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Conference Call (Score:3, Interesting)
Novell? You listening? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What did Microsoft buy ? (Score:5, Interesting)
1500 threatening letters to companies using Linux. That amounts to a whole lot of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. SCO's claims don't have to be true to do the kind of damage the MicroSoft wants done to Linux. After all, didn't MS warn companies that they might get sued for using Linux? Convenient.
Re:SCO Response Contradicts their own website! (Score:5, Interesting)
Bruce
Re:Novell's press release (Score:5, Interesting)
After turning this over in my head a bit, I think you're right. SCO can go after IBM for breach of contract, but it would be Novell that would need to begin procedings to remove the code from Linux.
This assumes that the code in question is part of the SysV UNIX code that SCO bought from Novell. If it is something that SCO developed after the fact, it could be a different story. But since SCO has been begging Novell for the copyright to the SysV code, I can only assume that isn't the case.
Re:SCO replies (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that's an incentive to NOT do business with them.
Re:Ransom Love? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bruce
Re:Finally (Score:2, Interesting)
Although, the key execs have probably already cashed out. But, maybe not, since they are likely in a quiet period right now.
Re:What did Microsoft buy ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently they have some product in the pipeline which would be easier to create with the unix source... probably interoperability or that text-mode windows server we were hearing about
Origin of those phrases. (Score:1, Interesting)
Certain individuals would put a cat in the bag, instead of a pig. Cats were easier to find than pigs.
Certain stupid people would not open the bag to check if it was really a pig. Hence, "buying a pig in a poke".
Certain smart people would open the bag and the cat would escape. Hence, "letting the cat out of the bag".
Re:And.... (Score:3, Interesting)
But, then, I am an evil businessperson.
Re:Founder confusion? (Score:4, Interesting)
Since it's lose-lose for Canopy (and Noorda) I guess the only thing to do was to stay mum. After all, he's really only a VC now.
*Could have knocked me over with a feather to see TrollTech on Canopy's list as well...
Re:insider trading (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:An interview with SCO CEO here (Score:4, Interesting)
The real FUD here is that SCO is trying to claim the Linux codebase is fundamentally a copy of UNIX System V. From SCO's original letter:
"We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights."
Oops... Clearly SCO does not own the IP to UNIX, this belongs to Novell. SCO is a merely a clearinghouse for managing the UNIX licensing. These words may come back to haunt them.
The new code developed jointly between IBM and SCO could be in question here, but this does not warrent a mass mailing to everyone in silicon valley. There will be reparations made, SCO has misstated the facts.
More FUD can be found here [sco.com]. The Stallman quote is most telling, "There is very little new stuff in Linux.". Stallman is not implying that Linux is a copylefted UNIX (as SCO would have you believe), but rather that Linux borrows the UNIX paradigm (pipes, processes, small programs for each command, etc.).
Don't be surprised when IBM, HP, Novell and others slap SCO a classaction lawsuite putting them in violation of their glorified UNIX policeman title.
SCO Letters (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be very interesting to see the letters that SCO sent out. If they weren't worded very carefully, and they include assertions of IP rights that SCO in fact doesn't own they could definitely trigger a rash of lawsuits.
When I was working in this field we were VERY careful when we went trolling for license fees. Something like:
Dear Sirs:
It has come to our attention that you may want to consider licensing the following patents (list numbers here).
Signed
XYX Patent Attorney.
No claims of infringement etc. Just a word to the wise. The recipient would then decide what sort of position they were in and respond with something like:
Dear XYX:
We are interested in #47, and would like to offer a license to our #53 in exchange.
(In other words, yeah, we might be doing #47, but we think you are doing #53)
-or-
We are not interested. (Prove it).
-or-
We invented that long before you patented it and here is a copy of our documentation of the fact.
And so on.
Re:WTF??? (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO Customers. Take note.
This could get a WHOLE LOT NASTIER (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, SCO is about to get their asses sued off by some very angry competitors, and what if they decide to squeal that the whole thing was Microsoft's idea in the first place?
Oh brother, this could get NASTY.
Even if Microsoft was just suckered in by the potential to do damage to Linux, SCO can make it very embarassing to Microsoft. This could be a lot more fun to watch than previous lawsuits.
Re:Finally (Score:5, Interesting)
At this price, the company is now worth about $100 Mil. At $1.40/share, it was worth less than $20 Mil. At either price, SCO is overvalued, but a buyout would be chump change to most SV players. Sun probably would gain the most, they could move anybody left on sco to solaris86, and use sco's customer list/services biz to push new solaris and raq sales. They'd also save a little cash on thier license for UNIX(TM).
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:5, Interesting)
Good point. But this would also make it a pure license/contract issue between SCO and IBM - SCO does evidently not hold copyright or patent rights to the code, so they can't go after SuSE or any other GNU/Linux distributor, vendor or user.
If IBM broke the license, SCO can get damages. But unless I'm missing something it seems like they can not go after any other party for using or distributing said code. That makes the threat letter a bit puzzling, to say the least.
Re:On the phone with SCO now.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Conf. call stats (Score:2, Interesting)
(Premonition of law suit...)
SCO's Response sounds Juvenile (Score:5, Interesting)
Novell responds to SCO responds to... (Score:4, Interesting)
Their current claim about contract breaches means that Linux is not part of their suite, which means that they are open to being sued in Europe for libel(sp?).
I would so dearly love to hear what the Lawyers are going to say about their claims that Contracts are stronger than copyrights, given that copyrights are a binding and do form a kind of contract.
Re:Why did Novell wait til now? (Score:3, Interesting)
That seems like a pretty standard method of wording in this sort of release. It makes them sound friendlier to third parties, and condescending as hell to SCO.
Wrapup (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing that may be interesting for those who missed it was the statement that "3 independent code teams" looked at the linux code and found "not just a line or 2, but significant code violations".
What is an insignificant violation? Also, if they felt the need to have 3 teams look at it, that seams to suggest that it's a pretty subjective statement to say there is infringement.
Re:Novell's press release (Score:3, Interesting)
Curiouser and Curiouser (Score:2, Interesting)
What the CEO said in the conference call just confirmed to me that the attack on Linux is nothing more than FUD. He said that SCO saw they weren't making money distributing GNU/Linux, so they decided to discontinue it and focus on their own Unix products. My interpretation is that they need to encourage people to start using SCO products that cost lots of money; why would they switch from something that's free? When it was asked what current Caldera Linux users should do, the CEO said that SCO Unix products work nearly everywhere GNU/Linux ones do. He also pointed out how some people are delaying their use of GNU/Linux because of SCO's recent letter, so they're succeeding in the FUD campaign.
Microsoft's licensing agreement with SCO comes way too close to be a coincidence. They either saw a great opportunity to contribute to some Linux FUD and ran with it, or they were in on it from the start.
Re:Conference Call (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorry, but it's irrelevant. (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe IBM can get the complaint dismissed since it contains incorrect statements. But maybe SCO can argue that the misstatements don't affect the core of their argument. My understanding is that if A sues B claiming 10 causes of action, and 9 of these are without merit, B could still be held liable for the 10th.
Our Planet would be better off without SCO (Score:1, Interesting)
The world we be a happier place without SCO.
SCO is like a wounded animal backed into a corner.
Hopefully it will die from rabies.
Right now SCO is in it's rabbid phase, so hopefully
in about a year they will be dead.
It's time for all the Unix platforms to Unite!
IBM, HP, APPLE, SGI, Linux, we all need to get
together and nuke SCO off the planet with a lawsuit.
On the Contrary (Score:4, Interesting)
If the truth is as it now appears that SCO really has very little IP interest in the original Unix core, and Novell actually owns what IP remains, then of course they can release any possible legal liabilities for Linux as it is and even release versions of their Sys V property under a free license. Novell would be very wise to do something like this because there isn't much commercial value remaining in this IP. I claim that the commercial value would actually increase after they released all the old stuff under GPL or compatible license. Anyone wanting to create a commercial derivative product still has to come back to the original owners for a commercial license, and the GPL branch will bring experimentation and resources to both.
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM may have violated the license by inserting proprietary code into an open source project. But SCO, knowingly (and still apparently legally in all scenarios (since they were authorized to sub-license)) and willingly published the code under GPL.
Any damages would be constrained between the time IBM released the "stolen code" and the time when SCO blessed the code by knowingly releasing it under GPL.
Even beyond that, the fact that SCO DID publish it knowingly and willingly under GPL could be interpreted as implicit or even explicit permission for the code to be there in the first place thus indemnifying IBM from fault and damages.
It looks like SCO MUST now reveal WHAT code is affected just to stay relevant. They must differentiate their stuff from both Linux AND the source they received (under license) from Novell.
Re:Finally (Score:3, Interesting)
S
Not to nitpick (Score:3, Interesting)
It amazes me.. (Score:2, Interesting)
United Linux [sco.com]
With claims like
"UnitedLinux provides the Linux business user with operating system platform that is focused on their needs and provides a greater choice of applications and hardware. The four geographically strong Linux partners, with headquarters in Asia, Europe, and South and North America, make it easier to provide local language support, training, and professional services. Customers now have a true international version of Linux. UnitedLinux enables more rapid adoption of Linux in the enterprise, which, in turn allows customers to reap the benefits of Linux with lower risk and cost."
it makes you wonder just how two faced they can be
Re:"you repeatedly asked us to transfer ownership" (Score:4, Interesting)
I wouldn't trust them with a broken horse collar. And I don't even have a horse.
Stock is tanking... (Score:4, Interesting)
SCOX 2:35pm 7.12 -1.59 -18.25% N/A N/A 7.12 7.29
Re:Just in .. new SCO claim (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO's reply states: "Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with."
This gives them no possible cause of action against anyone in the Linux community other than organizations that willingly entered into a contract with SCO. Moreover, it means that their entire case here can only be against IBM, for trade secret infringement of code that SCO itself published, which is not going to work. Yet SCO, by trying to claim trade secret protection on elements of the version of linux that they were shipping still violates the GPL clause 6 "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Would some kernel contributor wake up and sue SCO for copyright infringement, please.
Yawn (Score:3, Interesting)
SCO hasn't said what the code is.
They haven't said what the routines are in general.
They haven't even indicated the amount of code involved.
Wake me when SCO says something that can be [disproved|proved].
-- this is not a
Re:Conference Call - Don't do it (Score:4, Interesting)
This looks like something the SEC should be looking into. Making false claims in a lawsuit is one thing - lawyers are expected to be liars in court. Making false declarations on financial statements is something else.