Novell Quotes AT&T on Derivative Works

grendelkhan writes "Novell has released their latest correspondance with the litigous bastards ordering them to stop the lawsuit by noon tomorrow, and clarify what the SVRX licensing agreements with AT&T meant regarding derivative works. The letter quotes AT&T from the April '85 issue of $echo as stating that they 'claim no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work.' So much for the ladder rung analogy." And reader highwaytohell links to today's CRN article in which Eben Moglen suggests that the SCO/Linux lawsuit cannot move ahead "until SCO resolves its dispute with Novell. And regardless of which company prevails in court, he said, customers won't have to pay any company for a license fee since both claimants--SCO and Novell--have distributed the Linux code under the GPL. Once again, SCO have no comment."

Meanwhile, back on the western front...

Assuming that this letter kicks the stool right out from under SCO (and Canopy) while they attempt to raid the cookie jar, we now return to "copyrights, Copyrights, Who Owns the Copyrights?"

IIRC SCO claims the copyrights and Novell claims "NOT!" the battle, what's left of it shifts to SCO having to defend themselves from Novell before they could proceed on anything else.

Looks pretty awful. I wonder when they'll exhibit some sense and give up, granted some heads would roll at SCO, but it's been a long time coming.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

the only copyrights SCO claims are to sysV unix (and some older unices that don't matter). They also have contractual rights to *derivative works* made from sysV. IBM's AIX is such a derivative work, and IBM cannot release it without SCO approval - for sure they can't turn AIX into GPL code.

BUT, IBM has independently produced a lot of software that is part of AIX but is not sysV code. This material from NOVELL makes it even clearer (if anything can be clearer than perfectly transparent) that IBM owns this independently developed code and can do whatever it wants with it -- notably, they can contribute it to linux under the GPL. SCO is toast.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

Well, they purport to have contractual rights to the derivative works. According to some of the posters on Groklaw, anyone who relied on the statements made in AT&T's $echo publication could say that SCO is barred as AT&T's successor in interest from asserting rights over the derivative works.

Moreover, according to the case law I've seen presented on Groklaw, it looks like SCO's theory of derivative works is unreasonable, to say the least.

Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, etc. but this new evidence from Novell is pretty well nailing down any last avenues of escape SCO might have hoped to have.

Honestly, SCO is totally screwed with respect to the lawsuits right now... I'm just wondering if they still have anything else up their sleeves? It's been rather apparent that they were screwed or going to be screwed for some time now, so they might have made contingency plans which may or may not need to be delt with... (e.g. what happens if they suddenly assign all their rights to another company or something?)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

So multitasking, like talking to your wife and thinking about your mistress

That's dangerous; human brains don't have memory protection.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

Moreover, according to the case law I've seen presented on Groklaw, it looks like SCO's theory of derivative works is unreasonable, to say the least.

The question in my mind is whether the judge might make a ruling w.r.t. the definition of "derivative works" that will be used in the case. Her job is only to get the discovery process back on track, but the case hinges on this definition to determine whether IBM needs to show its AIX code to SCO. The judge herself said that it's unusual to take a decision in a discovery proceeding under advisement. If she comes back with a decision on this matter, then the thin remaining threads of SCO's case completely disappear.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

Well, IBM did cite a ruling (Litchfield vs. Spielberg), that someone on groklaw decrypted as : "the derivated work must contain parts of the orginal."
Applyed to this case : Just because AIX is derivated from SysV and Linux contains code that is also in AIX does not mean that Linux is a derivate of SysV. To be a derivate of SysV, Linux has to include SysV code.

On the other hand, SCO claims now that this case is not about SysV code in Linux, but AIX/Sequel code in Linux. So if the judge accepts the definition of the Spielberg ruling, SCO has no case left. (IANAL)

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

Well, they certainly seem to have been leaving the door open for future claims and arguments. Or at least, that's how I interpret their continuing refusal, in court, to detail all of their claims -- a few allegations here, a few lines of code there, but not even the judge can get out of them exactly what they're claiming.

Maybe they're still checking the details themselves, maybe they're trying to give IBM as little time as possible to respond, maybe they have something really clever up their sleeves. But personally, I think they know they have nothing, and are either hoping something will turn up (maybe from all the discovery they want from IBM), or that by adding new claims at long intervals, they'll be able to spin it out until everyone gets fed up.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

Well, they certainly seem to have been leaving the door open for future claims and arguments. Or at least, that's how I interpret their continuing refusal, in court, to detail all of their claims -- a few allegations here, a few lines of code there, but not even the judge can get out of them exactly what they're claiming.

Maybe they're still checking the details themselves, maybe they're trying to give IBM as little time as possible to respond, maybe they have something really clever up their sleeves. But personally, I think they know they have nothing, and are either hoping something will turn up (maybe from all the discovery they want from IBM), or that by adding new claims at long intervals, they'll be able to spin it out until everyone gets fed up.

From everything I've read in the case, especially the transcript, Mark Heise, counsel for SCO, practically requested that the judge allow him a fishing license so they could go through the IBM/Sequent codebases on an expedition to find something, anything to substantiate their code. The requests to see AIX/Dynix are nothing more than SCO saying, "We think we have a case, however, without being able to compare the current code bases, which we do not have, to our own code base and to Linux, we cannot substantiate our claims any better."

In other words, they don't have a case, they know they don't have a case, and they're praying that they can get enough leeway outta the judge that she'll allow discovery on the two code bases in question so they can come up with a case. IBM has known all along that SCO et al are completely full of shit, has anticipated that SCO has no proof of anything and will do anything they can to keep SCO from getting the code they need for their fishing expedition.

The judge can see right through all of the SCO shenanigans. I'd have loved to have been in judges chambers on the 6th to have heard the exchange that went on. I'm betting Heise got a very stern talking to over what's happened so far, and ordered Heise, et al, to do several things:

1. Produce the discovery items that IBM has requested per the order to compel.

2. Indicated that SCO's side of discovery will continue to be stayed until SCO coughs up *everything*.

3. Put a muzzle on McBride, Sontag and the rest of the idiot windbags at SCO as it appears that anytime any one of them opens their mouth, it's been quite damaging to their own case.

Notice how since the last hearing, SCO has become *very quiet*. They issued a very short press release, and didn't hold the press conference that had been promised for after the hearing. McBride hasn't had anything to say since the Harvard thing. This is a good thing. Their attempts to spread FUD have completely backfired, and I'd believe that they finally have figured out the first rule any attorney tells a client: Don't say anything to anyone about ongoing litigation. Shut the fuck up!

IBM and their attorneys appear very confident that they have all the loose ends and every possible defense lined up in case of anything that SCO tosses at them. Notice how much the case has morphed since it's been filed, worse than any chameleon with a bad case of the jitters. I could tell that Heise, with all his whining about what a burden discovery has been for his client so far, hasn't scored *any* points with the judge.

In the end, I believe the judge is going to come back and issue an order stating that SCO is to produce what's been asked of them, *everything* requested by IBM, within 30-45 days. Until then, discovery in the other direction will remain on hold. If SCO again fails to meet what's required of them, I believe that the judge will end up tossing the case as it's already quite weak in substantial claims.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

I'm just wondering if they still have anything else up their sleeves?

Darl is going to enter the courtroom wearing a neck brace.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

Darl:
"Yes, your honor.. I was beaten up by hooligans, no doubt in the employ of IBM, seeking to damage me physically as well as in the press. I was helping an old woman cross the street this morning.... How do I know they were IBM hooligans? Well, they were well dressed, and attacked me without the slightest provocation once they realized who I was."

IBM Attorney:
"I submit the videotape from camera 3, on the northwest corner of the 7-11 at 202nd Ave and Mormon Way. Here, at 3:12:08, we see Darl exiting the store with a burrito. At 3:12:30, Here we see Darl speaking to an elderly woman carrying a stuffed penguin. At 3:12:57, we see him attempting to take the woman's stuffed toy. By 3:13:09 we see he's given up on trying to steal the penguin, and instead is reaching for the womans purse. At 3:13:26, we see two well dressed gentlemen attempting to stop a robbery. At 3:14:40 the store clerk joins the two gentlemen in suits and the elderly woman, with a baseball bat. Conclusive proof that this man not only lies in front of the court, he tried to steal a penguin and when he couldn't get away with it, tries to steal this poor woman's purse!"

The Wookie Offense

Would we call that "The Wookie Offense"?

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

OK, let's wax lyrical and assume that SCO's cupboard is finally bare and it's all over for SCO's case freeing up IBM to go for damages, and maybe Novell, Red Hat and others as well. Once the lawyers are paid off, there is not going to be much left in the piggy back except for SCO's various Unix licences and copyrights, which will probably get transferred to IBM or Novell. The big question then is, what will *they* do with them?

First and foremost, IBM is a hardware and services company; they don't *really* care about software beyond the fact that it helps them shift hardware and services. If they can get revenue from the software, great, but it's a drop in the ocean as far as their turnover is concerned. Novell is primarily a software company, although they do appear to be trying to reinvent themselves as a Linux networking services company to me.

So, what do either of them have to lose by simply releasing all of their newly acquired copyrights and licenses into the public domain? Perhaps not a lot. What they have to *gain* though, is phenomonal; for a start the OSS community is going to see them as the heroes that set UNIX free which brings its own rewards. Best of all for IBM and Novell though, it's going to be a big kick in the teeth for Microsoft and will probably have a serious impact on Solaris sales as well.

It could well be that 2004 is *the* year that OSS really hits the big time that has been inevitable for so long. But who would have dreamed a few years ago that it might be IBM, Novell that made it happen after SCO/Caldera inadvertantly provided the catalyst?

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

Maybe IBM will use the licences to create GNU/UNIX to spite RMS.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

> First and foremost, IBM is a hardware and services company; they don't *really* care about software beyond the fact that it helps them shift hardware and services. If they can get revenue from the software, great, but it's a drop in the ocean as far as their turnover is concerned.

Full disclosure: I work for the IBM Software Group, which gives me some authority to state that our software sales aren't "a drop in the ocean". Our 2003 annual report isn't quite ready yet but look at the 2002 figures:
Total sales - $81.186 billion
Software sales - $13.074 billion
http://www.ibm.com/annualreport/2002/fr_c fs.htm

Not exactly trivial, is it? If I remember correctly, counted as a software company we'd be like the 2nd or 3rd largest in the world. Only MS and maybe Oracle/SAP play in that arena.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

So, what do either of them have to lose by simply releasing all of their newly acquired copyrights and licenses into the public domain? Perhaps not a lot. What they have to *gain* though, is phenomonal; for a start the OSS community is going to see them as the heroes that set UNIX free

um, no - if they abandon it to the public domain they would not considered idiots, not heroes -

The public domain dumping ground is the absolute _worst_ place for anything of value, since it's then open season. Some crappy monopolist could just grab the whole thing, put a few incompatibilities into it, call it "new technology", get it patented, and lobby to have laws passed which would make it a crime to attempt to interoperate or reverse engineer the protocols.

Better, much better, if it were all placed under the protection of the GPL. Then they might be considered heroes, and rightly so.

Re:Meanwhile, back on the western front...

AC: "the only copyrights SCO claims are to sysV unix (and some older unices that don't matter). They also have contractual rights to *derivative works* made from sysV. IBM's AIX is such a derivative work, and IBM cannot release it without SCO approval - for sure they can't turn AIX into GPL code."

This is actually not correct, though you're at least in the right ballpark. SCO claims all copyrights for all UNIX and UNIXWARE. Including, in SCO's opinion System V. This language does come from the APA.

Unfortuantely, for SCO, there are a *lot* of clauses in the Novell-OldSCO Purchasing Agreement that *exclude* most rights in System V. About the only right SCO has in Sys V, as far as I can read into the APA, is the right to collect Sys V licensing fees for Novell, send dunning letters for unpaid bills, and to be at the table for discussions over Sys V license buyouts. And even the latter is questionable.

Whether or not AIX is a "derivative work" is debatable, and largely turns on the semantics by which you define "derivative". What isn't debatable is that those portions of AIX that *include* Sys V code are "derivative", as that meets the minimal, least general, definition of "derivative". SCO has so far failed to identify *any* Sys V code in AIX (or Dynix) that has been contributed to Linux. They have only claimed to identify original AIX & Dynix code that have been contributed to Linux, which isn't covered by the contract according to ATT's old statements.

So, we probably shouldn't say that AIX is a "derivative work" of Sys V, although some *portions* of it may be.

It's like saying Linux is a derivative work of BSD, which we all know it isn't, even though we also all know that some files in Linux are derived from BSD.

latest correspondance ???

Is this the new official name ;)

I've got some sad news

Google has apparently noticed, and now neither litigious bastards [google.com] or just plain bastards [google.com] comes up with SCO [sco.com]. (This may not yet be true on all Google mirrors.)

watch the truncat...

Interestingly, the Google news page [google.com] truncates the CRN headline to:

"Expert Claims SCO-Novell Copyright Dispute Will Halt Linux..."

the truncated bit is "customer lawsuit".

Xix.

litigous bastards?

I know that everyone and their dog here at Slashdot hates SCO, but is it really necesscary to call them names? It just makes us look like Mad Zealots [debian.org]. Youd think after the what the BBC published you would try and take this case more calmly?

Re:litigous bastards?

aActually, I would disagree. I wrote the BBC and received a reply today. Ironically, they did not seem to address the actual issues I brought up. I do give them credit for at least replying, however, the text of their email is as follows:

Thanks for your e-mail.

I have noted the points you made - as well as the vigorous debate on Slashdot.org about this article.

Well, Stephen Evan's weekly "stateside" column is not a news story, but an analytical look at major events and business trends in the United States.

It is, of course, debatable whether MyDoom/Novarg/Shimgapi was written just to bring down the SCO website, or whether the installation of spamming tools on numerous computers was an additional - or even the main - motive.

That was not the point of Stephen's article.

In his piece he wanted to draw the attention of BBC News Online's audience - many of whom are unlikely to know the ins and outs of the Open Source debate - to the rapid spread of Linux as a commercial application, SCO's attempts to cash in on this fact, and the deep anger that SCO has caused within the Linux community through its legal actions.

Stephen is not the first to draw the link between MyDoom and SCO's actions over Linux - plenty of others have done that before, including virus experts.

Regards,

Tim Weber
Business Editor
BBC News Interactive - www.bbc.co.uk/businessnews

Now, I would disagree with the point of the article, which the BBC won't even claim is an article. They seemed to be more intent on defending themselves than addressing issues. They even brought up Slashdot in my reply, although I didn't tell them I read about it at slashdot. My original letter is as follows:

After reading the story titled "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty" by Stephen Evans, I have to question the research that went into the article. While the author tries to remain objective, there are many assumptions in the article that simply do not hold water.

To put the blame, without any evidence, on a group of Linux users is certainly easy, and at first glance it may seem appropriate. However, a small amount of research would demonstrate the author of the virus would have to be an expert Windows programmer. Generally speaking, programmers who excel on one platform are not experts on another. The differences between Windows and Linux are broad enough to make specializing in both rather impractical. This is demonstrated by the difficulty in porting Windows applications over to the Linux platform, and the fact that Linux runs on many different CPUs by design, whereas Windows runs on the x86 platform only.

A more plausible theory, and one more backed by the facts, is an individual or group who writes a virus that can DDOS (Distributed Denial of Service) any website, and chooses SCO because they know that Linux zealots will be blamed. Its the "perfect crime" in that many will blindly blame someone other than you.

If the author of the article had done any significant research, he would have discovered that all of the well known programmers in the Linux community are quite confident that SCO will not prevail in its court case, and have publicly, loudly, and often told fellow Linux users that it is important to NOT attack, verbally or digitally, SCO. The courts will do their job. The fact is, this attack makes the Linux community look bad, and it is likely that any member of this community would know this, and would be less inclined to participate in these actions.

I can't say with any certainty who created this virus, but in spite of your articles claims, it is NOT obviously a Linux zealot.

By the way, I'm a happy Windows user who dabbles in Linux because it is a fun operating system. I am concerned about the SCO lawsuit, and more concerned about the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) that is being spewed by both sides. I am quite disappointed when an ins

Re:litigous bastards?

It's a form letter. According to the Groklaw-ites, several people who wrote to complain got the identical letter.

Re:litigous bastards?

It's a form letter. According to the Groklaw-ites, several people who wrote to complain got the identical letter.

I don't doubt that, ironic that they would assume Slashdot for every letter and send the reference to everyone. And be defensive to everyone.

As a side note, I tend to NOT make slashdot the http_referrer when I know I'm going to write someone, so I don't think they grepped it from the logs ;) Its kinda like taking the porno tape out of the VCR BEFORE you take it to the shop...

Re:litigous bastards?

Youd think after the what the BBC published you would try and take this case more calmly?

Some of us really don't give a damn about politics. We do, however, appreciate a good joke, and we do enjoy seeing justice done when the legal system fails in its role.

Having Google's top link to "Litigious bastards" point to SCO doesn't hurt anyone, and made for a good laugh when I first saw that. You could call the MyDoom worm a bit less harmless, but y'know, despite Bruce P begging us all to behave, I really don't give a shit. I egged on the worm, and felt quite pleased when SCO had to change the URL of their web site. Sadly, it appears in hindsight that the worm's author used the SCO attack as a ruse, but the end result remains overall positive. SCO deserves it, and much worse, for their current business model."Litigious bastards" doesn't "call them names", it makes a statement of fact.

Call it vigilanteism if you want, but when a company can get away with obviously "wrong" activities simply because they haven't broken any existing laws, I for one consider it "justice" that they have a fed-up mob come after them to burn them at the stake.

So, behave? Hey, I won't start it. But when a pedophile priest "mysteriously" suicides in a crowded jail cell, we all know what happened, and we all cheer it on. When a father hunts down and brutally disembowels his daughter's rapist, who got off on a techinicality, no one cries for the dead scum. And when a worm targets SCO, well, sometimes two wrongs does make a right.


But, hey... Just my opinion. Feel free to defend SCO's raping of our legal system. And remember, even if they lose, they still got what they wanted (time to sell their shares at a massively inflated rate compared to their actual value). Justice? No. We can at best hope to annoy them, since they've already "gotten away" with the actual offense.

Bullshit.

You are calling for the law of the jungle, everybody able to be judge, jury, executor and even accusing part.

I don't want part of such world, even evil people have a right to be protected and respected. Those gurantees for the worst in our societies will ensure that we live with freedom and without fear of unfair prosecutions and retribution.

I wonder..

..if there's a spot for a free-lance commenter at SCO. They seem to be awfully quiet nowadays. Although they might just be busy developing new software, or something, too.

You really blew it

The google bomb is not going to work when you misspell litigious bastards.

Think of how many links you could have generated if you had of spent some time with the dictionary.

*sigh*

Re:You really blew it

Think of how many links you could have generated if you had of spent some time with the dictionary.

"Had of"? Would you like some grammar with your dictionary?

How soon we forget.

"Novell has released their latest correspondance with the litigous bastards..."

And some of you accused the BBC of making an unfounded claim [slashdot.org] when they said this:

"If anyone's anger has no measure, it is the wrath of internet zealots who believe that code should be free to all (open source). So, it seems likely that the perpetrators of the MyDoom virus and its variants are internet vandals with a specific grudge."

If you guys don't like having the finger pointed at you, then don't say things like that to attract attention to yourselves.

Re:How soon we forget.

Don't get me wrong, linking them to that term so that they show up on certain Google searches is rather immature.

However, it represents only a 1st Ammendment protected oppinion, and poses no harm nor threat to SCO in any way.

In short, yes, it looks bad and should probably be avoided simply because of the impression certain people in the media try to give of us [1], but it is still a valid form of protest.

We can't all picket SCO's offices [2].

[1] Especially Daniel Lyons of Forbes, who I have recently chastized here for quoting random trolls and jokes as sources for his "story" ... see my posting history. I strongly suggest you not turn to Forbes for financial advice if this is the extent of their "research" ...

[2] Incidentally, as you can read from some rather old Groklaw.com stories, SCO made false signs to mingle with those of the protesters and to malign them, saying something to the effect of 'we support communism'. So any further actions by them would not be the first time they had used an agent provacateur to malign their opponents...

Re:How soon we forget.

I disagree. Linux zealots or not, Sco are litigous bastards. BBC linking Linux users and coders to MyDoom trojan without looking at any other points of view, now that is some 'fair' news delivery.

Re:How soon we forget.

Secondly, who has any real motive besides the Linux users that stand to lose the most? BBC did nothing wrong by pointing the spotlight at the people most likely to have done it.

That opinion is so thick the author undoubtedly lives under a bridge. People with motives - hmm, let's see. How about spammers and computer extortionist and anyone else with a strong economic interest in seeing that the insecurities inherent in Windows remain available to them. Heck, you could even suggest that Symantec has a motive, since there is little economic viability in antivirus software for linux or unix. When you consider that 75% of the MyDoom infections DID NOT carry a payload addressing SCO, then it is quite easily as reasonable to suspect that the SCO thing was just misdirection.

Hate the PDF?

For those of you who don't have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, here's a handy link to read the pdf online [samurajdata.se].

the thing that makes me the most mad

is that freaking e-trade doesn't have SCOX on its list of shortable securities.

And if you listen very carefully...

...you can hear the sound of a coffin being nailed shut!

license agreements useless

If SCO actually started selling binary only (or whatever they are) licenses, wouldn't they be violating the GPL for every bit of code that wasn't theirs (assuming they had some in there at all)? Correct me if I'm wrong (no really, I think I might be wrong), but isn't it inevitable that if they have any code in the kernel, it'll be removed not because they have to point out what's theirs but because they have to point out what's not theirs?

The GPL and IBM's Counterclaim

There's nothing wrong with selling the code in binary form - just as long as you can produce the GPL source code you used (as per the license).

Now IBM on the other hand is arguing an interesting point in their counterclaim. They are saying that SCO are not living up to their agreements because of the lawsuits. According to the GPL, SCO are not allowed to claim ownership on GPL'd code or sue to assert any sort of rights to it. IBM has therefore 'pulled' their right to use any code GPL'd by IBM (and there's a lot of it).

Now, 'pulled' is in quotes because obviously SCO is still distributing (or we can assume they are), some of IBM's GPL-based contributions. This is similar to the way SCO 'pulled' IBM's right to distribute AIX. IBM disputes that right due to wording of the license. SCO disputes the right of IBM's assertion by saying the GPL itself is invalid.

If the trial ever gets to the point of validating the GPL, it will be interesting to hear SCO's side of this one. To quote 'Airplane':

'They bought their tickets, they KNEW what they were getting into... I say, LET 'EM CRASH!'

SCO (previously Caldera) played by the same rules as everyone else when they willingly and actively contributed to the GPL. To all of a sudden claim that the GPL is invalid after YEARS of contribution to it is ridiculous! If SCO makes it through the lawsuit without losing their business it will be a miracle.

It's kind of a shame too because this has nothing to do with the programmers, dealers, users, and other stakeholders. This is about lawyers and corporate exec scumbags enjoying their retirement on some tropical paradise.

www.sco.com is a WMD

www.sco.com is a weapon of mass destruction [netcraft.com].
Do read the last Solution (#5)

Everyone together now!

and a 1
and a 2 ...
"Na na naa naaa..., na na naa naaaa..., heyyy eyy eyy, GOODBYE!!!!!

Plaintext version of PDF

Mr. Ryan E. Tibbitts
General Counsel
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Lindon, UT 84042

Re: Sequent Computer Systems

Dear Mr. Tibbitts:

On May 29, 2003, SCO sent a letter to Sequent Computer Systems providing notice that it would terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement as of September 2, 2003 if Sequent did not remedy certain alleged breaches of the license agreement. On August 11, 2003, SCO sent another letter to Sequent purporting to terminate Sequent's SVRX license agreement. IBM, on behalf of Sequent, responded to these letters by letter of August 14, 2003.

As it has with IBM and other SVRX licensees, SCO appears to be taking the position that code developed by Sequent, or licensed by Sequent form a third party, which Sequent incorporated in its UNIX variant but which itself does not contain proprietary UNIX code supplied by AT&T under the license agreement betwee AT&T and Sequent (Sequent Code), must nevertheless be maintained as confidental and may not be contributed to Linux. As we have said before, SCO's position defies both logic and the terms of the SVRX license agreement.

SCO cites, as support for its position, section 2.01 of Sequent agreement, which, like other SVRX licenses, provides as follows:

Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

As we have said, however, this provision merely confirms that AT&T retained ownership of its code even if it was incorporated in a derivative work, and does not purport to impose confidentiality or use restrictions on Sequent Code.

In fact, SCO's interpretation of 2.01 is plainly contrary to the position taken by AT&T, as author of and party to the SVRX licenses. AT&T clarified the meaning of section 2.01 in its $ echo publication, which AT&T described as its own newsletter to reach all UNIX System V licensees through one defined medium and keeps them abreast of any product announcements, policy changes, company business and pricing structures.

Specifically, in an edition of $ echo dated April 1985 (the same month that the Sequent license agreement was signed), AT&T announced that changes would be made to hte SVRX license agreement to clarify ownership of modifications or derivative works prepared by a licensee. AT&T said this and other announced changes were in response to direct feedback from AT&T licensees and [were] intended to make the contracts more responsive to the needs of licensees. AT&T then followed up by adding to section 2.01 a sentence clarifying that AT&T claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work that is not part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Even more clearly, the August 1985 edition of $ echo explained that this sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they developed - only the portion of the software developed by AT&T. Copies of the April and August 1985 editions of $ echo are enclosed for your convenience.

For these reasons, and the reasons stated in our October 7, 2003 letter to you about IBM-developed code, SCO's position on Sequent Code is unsupportable.

Under Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchase Agreement, Novell retains the right at Novell's sole discretion and direction, to require SCO to amend, supplement, modify, or waive any rights under, or...assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by [Novell]. That section further provides that to the extent SCO shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as directed by Novell, Novell shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on [SCO's] own behalf.

Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchas

just can't hear the comment

Once again, SCO have no comment.

They may well be trying to comment, but it's hard to hear what they are saying, since they have thier heads so far up thier asses....

They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

According to one of SCO's lawyers, in a letter published on Groklaw [groklaw.net], SCO only managed to sell three "Linux licenses".

Yes. Three (3).

He says: "At this juncture, I am only aware of a license with Computer Associates, Questar and Leggett & Platt."

I'm betting you can get a good price on a used Linux license from them by now...

Re:They bought the "Linux license" from SCO

...And the number of the Linux Licenses shall be three. Four shall the number of the linux licenses not be, neither shall the number of Linux Licenses be two, without immediately selling/giving away exactly one more license, for a total of three. Five is right out. And when the number three, being the third number of Licenses having been given away, be reached, I shall reach out with my holiest of lawsuits, and the Litigating Bastards shall be smited....

Under SCO's 5 reasons to use SCO instead of Linux

SCO is the owner of the UNIX(R) Operating System Intellectual Property that dates all the way back to 1969, when the UNIX(R) System was created at Bell Laboratories. Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has acquired ownership of the copyrights and core technology associated with the UNIX(R) System. The SCO source division will continue to offer traditional UNIX(R) System licenses to preserve, protect, and enhance shareholder value.

As early as May 2003, SCO warned Linux(R) users that enterprise use of the Linux(R) operating system was in violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX(R) technology. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces ("ABI Code") have been copied verbatim from SCO's copyrighted UNIX(R) code base and contributed to Linux(R) for distribution under the General Public License ("GPL") without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. These facts support SCO's position that the use of the Linux(R) operating system in a commercial setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

While some application programming interfaces ("API Code") have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX(R) ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX(R) operating systems and to assist UNIX(R) licensees in the development process. The UNIX(R) ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux(R). As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux(R), and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX(R) copyrighted software code.

Bwhahahahaha!!!

RBC, TICC, SCO

I was reading through the message boards on Yahoo! Finance for SCO, and there were several messages about RBC, TICC, and SCO, with the implication being that perhaps there was some illegal activity going on in the financing of SCO. I have not read anything about that on groklaw or /. and was wondering if anyone here knows anything about it.

Re:Holy rumour mongering...

That's true. You can probe it easily. Their stock, instead of being higly volatile, and despite the strong indication that they not only can win the case, but that they don't even have the RIGHT to those claims, and despite the fact they have been lawfully revoked any right regarding those claims, based on the very same contract that granted them the (restricted) ownership of a SVRX, their stock has been maintained all day at a fixed value. A present value.

Somebody, for some reason, I forcing the stock not to fall. Once that "someone" is identified, and it's verified they operate in Bahamas o Caiman, then we'll know it was something very much illegal.

What you will never know is who ordered that SCOX should not go below certain threshold...unless Mr McBride talks in order to avoid jail.

Re:Holy rumour mongering...

I cannot speak for the previous period. But recently, SCOX restructured their PIPE finance/loan from Baystar/Royal Canadian Bank to have a floor price of conversion for the $50 Million invested. Thus, Baystar would be guarentee of their initial investment. Should the stock price falls below the floor price, SCOX have to pay the difference.

Since the trade volume is so light, it doesn't take much effort of trading amounst friends to maintain the price.

SCO/Linux

Darl begins a campaign to have kernel renamed SCO/Linux, after all it is a combination of SCO and Linux contributer IP, no? ;)

MP

Huh?

SCO have no comment

Who writes this stuff? Yoda?

Re:Huh?

The Brits tend to refer to companies in the plural.

Re:Huh?

Yoda is British? Whoa.

Benefits of SCO UNIX?

As seen here [sco.com] one of the benefits is "These security features guard against business interruption, denial of service attacks and protect against identity or corporate information theft." (emphasis mine) It makes one wonder why they don't run their web server on it instead of linux [netcraft.com]?

Novell quotes $echo as a legal reference???

... I mean, I loathe SCO as much as anyone, but cmon. This is a small step above pie charts done in crayon.

I'm proud of them finding this, and I'm glad its been brought to SCO's attention, but geez. And publicly announcing this to the world instead of dealing with it in a professional manner - what is is with Utah companies? They're like the morons I work with that reply-all on company-wide emails.

Decorum, children, decorum...

Re:Novell quotes $echo as a legal reference???

Haven't even read the letter, and if you did, then worst yet, because you didn't get the important part.

Novell is telling the World that public company by the name IBM has been given green light to use their own code (JFS, EVMS, ETC), because the assets transfer to SCO allows Novel to Waive any right SCO may claim to their licensees.

Basically, they are overruling SCOs licence, making it clear they have the right to do so, and ordering SCO to cease the trial, because the are claming a right that has been clarified they do not have and never ever had.

So basically the _hole point_ of the Novell letter, is letting ANY investor all over the world, that IBM has already won the trial, and that there is no posibility they may lose $5000 billion, not even a 0.000001% chance.

So calling them unprofessional makes you look silly at best.

SCO has no comment?

I think their comment is right here. [yahoo.com]

Anything to make this mess go away.

It will be nice to see newSCO go down in flames and the legal basis for Linux reaffirmed.

Mostly it will be nice to see the puffery and mugging for stock prices end!

ls

again with the spellchecking...

Now I understand that slashdot is known to be spellcheck impared [slashdot.org], but when your trying to googlebomb someone there isn't much of an excuse to screwing that up.

Am I the only one...

who skipped not only the article but the summary, to directly see what the latest round of SCO jokes was?

IANAL, but it seems that novell...

...has delt a deathblow in to the sails of SCO's lawsuit...

legalese is not a plain language, but it seems pretty clear in this recent letter (read thru the eyes of a layman) that AT&T clearly sez that aside from the original source code, it lays no claim on any other work, i.e. "we made the foundation, and it is un-equivcocably ours, but what you build on top of our foundation is all yours."

looks like SCO is gonna have to take novell's instruction as to how thay can apply the license for unix...

DAD: I said "NO!"
DARL: but...
DAD: "NO!" means no! no "if", "ands" or "buts"!
DARL: but..
DAD: that's it. Go to your room until i tell you to come out.
DARL:... i was just...
DAD: sorry son. this is going to hurt me more that you.

What do you mean no comment?

What do you mean they have no comment? They have been trying to beat us over the head for months about matching comments in the Linux and Unix source code files!

Advice Mr. McBride.

You would think by now people would learn. There are just some things one should never do.
1.) Never get involved in an Asian Land War.
2.) Never *assume the Acid is legit, without knowing who made it.
3.) Never, ever believe that Republicans or Dems are very different in philosophy or levels of corruption.
4.) Never ever fuck with Big Blue, unless you like the feeling of your anus getting stretched.
5.) Never bite the hand that feeds you unless you want to have your teeth kicked in.
This is just some advice Darl. I hope what life you will have before you after you get out of federal prison is enjoyable. See ya in 20!

What concerns me is...

the fact that SCO have nothing to say. After month and months of painting themselves fluro orange, attaching a halogen lamp to their foreheads and screaming at the top of their lungs in order to get everyone's attention, the last few things that have come out they've remained tight-lipped over.

I'd like to think they're either running out of things to say, or they've realised how much damage they were doing by spouting so much drivel.

But part of me just can't shake the feeling that something's up...

Note the date....

Novell's letter is dated Friday, 2/6/2004.

It was sent via certified mail and FAX. So, Novell can probably demonstrate that SCO received the letter on 2/6/2004.

That was the day of the last court hearing, in which SCO continued to make unreasonable claims of ownership, despite clear evidence to the contrary from Novell. But, do you suppose the letter was received (and acknowledged) before the court hearing?

If and when the judge reads this letter and puts together the time line, what do you think she will do?

12:00 MDT != noon (nitpick)

Isn't MDT the abbreviation for Mountain Daylight-savings Time? As it is currently the winter half of the year I think they probably meant MST (Mountain Standard Time).

12:00 MDT = 11:00 MST

Therefore, per Novell's letter, SCO has until 11:00 tomorrow.

I know, I know... what does it really matter...

Wait...Wait...Wait.

Are they saying that SCO could actually be LYING about this case?

No..... not SCO...

Get It Right!

1) You misspelled litigious bastards [sco.com].

2)The SCO website has moved from http://www.sco.com/ to http://sco.com/

3) Here's the correct way to do it: litigious bastards [sco.com]

4) Just in case you missed the last one: litigious bastards [sco.com]

5) One more time for the dummies: litigious bastards [sco.com]

6) Wheee this is fun! litigious bastards [sco.com]

7) Pant!Pant! litigious bastards [sco.com]

8) Hmm, I seem to have had an orgasm... litigious bastards [sco.com] ...

Penguin Blood Fiasco

This has been posted before. But it's getting more relevant with every SCO story lately:

http://www.ubergeek.tv/fiasco/index.php?size=big [ubergeek.tv]

Enjoy!

If you're going to try...

While I appreciate the effort to attempt to make SCO show up on the #1 search for a negative term like that, it doesn't help when you spell it wrong. It's "litigious", not "litigous".

Re:If you're going to try...

You know what's going to be worse? When people type it into google and it goes: 'Did you mean "litigous bastard"?'

Ah well ...

Here's hoping for a long slow death...

At first I was hoping that SCO would be quickly wiped from the face of the earth, but now I'm beginning to enjoy watching them slowly hang themselves. Otherwise, what would we have to read on Slashdot and Groklaw? Cheers, SCO, here's wishing you a long slow decline (much like your stock price), as your attorneys suck the money out of your coffers, and the shareholder lawsuits pile up...a quick death is too good for you guys.

Incorrect or Unexpected Message from SCO

Okay, so I went to the sco.com website, and typed "litigious bastards" into the search line, and it came back with a popup:
sco.com has sent an incorrect or unexpected message. Error code -12281

Where to file this...

Reading the Groklaw transcripts, I can't help but wonder how much trouble the legal clerks will have in filing this. Does it go under "Courtroom drama" (dramatic is what it will be for SCO), under "Courtroom comedy" or "Poetic justice, the making of..."? We all should send Darl McBride a nickel in an envelope. Not only will we get the satisfaction of slashdotting by snail mail, but he'll need all the charity he can get once IBM and Novell have waltzed over him.

Please don't Googlebomb

Sigh. Am I the only person who thinks that Googlebombing [wikipedia.org] is childish? It's basically the same technique spammers use to pervert their popularity on the search engine. Worse, it prevents surfers from getting undisturpted, unbaised information about a topic. For instance, how can Bush be both a miserable failure [google.com] and a great president [google.com]! These PageRanks make no logical sence when taken together, but googlebombing disrupted the normal weights for Bush on these topics. I don't care what the intentions are, purposely trying to change Google's PageRank is wrong.

Transcript

Man that transcript is funny. The SCO lawyers behave like kids caught not paying attention in class - the judge says his bit, the IBM lawyer gives his part of the case, then the SCO lawyer suddenly notices everyone is looking at him and it's his turn, panics, leaps up and says "Show us the AIX code", sits down and drifts off again.

Class Action

There should be a class action lawsuit for anyone that bought a UNIXWARE linux license.

SCO guy's book on Unix internals

Wow, talk about a bad time to publish your book [amazon.com] on the internals of SCO Unix! You've got to feel sorry for the guys that actually used to write and support the code at SCO - apparently the author (Steve D. Pate) is a senior engineer there. See http://www.aplawrence.com/Books/scounixint.html

Just to point out...

It says that it will halt the CUSTOMER LAWSUITS. Not the IBM LAWSUIT.

SCO's claim to charge customers for copyright infringement has been 'iffy' at best. IANAL, but, if an author is plagiarized in another authors book, the original author cannot sue people who BOUGHT the book. They really can only pursue the author and/or the publish company that actually COMMITTED the plagiarism, because thats where the crime is (allegedly).

Litigous?

No such word. Perhaps you meant LitigIous?

H'mmm... I've been saying from the beginning...

I've been saying from the beginning that the reason SCO can't produce the code of 'theirs' which they claim has been copied into Linux is because they've never actually seen it. Now they confirm exactly that:

MR. HEISE: ... We have given the technology based upon the information we have. The answers to interrogatories that they are complaining say, yes, but for those given technologies you have not identified the specific lines. What we have said in our answers to interrogatories is we can't identify those specific lines because it comes from your confidential code which we don't have access to yet.

[Grocklaw's emphasis]

Based on earlier successful legal defense -

If the (silly SCO) suit doesn't fit, you must acquit.

Re:Up2date

I can only wonder what might come along and top these guys.

SCO actually getting their $699 license fee?

Re:www.sco.com

Yup. sco.com (no www) is still resolving though.

Re:SCO.com down (kinda)

" It seems that www.sco.com is down now, for some reason."

Well, yes. They changed the site name to www.thescogroup.com to hide from mydoom