SCO Gives Notice To 6,000 Unix Licensees 442
inode_buddha writes "This article describes SCO's recent letters to its UNIX licensees, asking them to certify that they '...are not using Unix code in Linux.' It also notes another set of letters '...outlining additional evidence of copyright infringement to a subset of 1,500 global Linux users that SCO first contacted in May about copyright infringement.' There's also a decent breakdown of the company's balance sheet and some quotes from company officials. I hope to see one of those 'other' letters; could anyone post it? SCO better have asbestos underwear." Ask and receive: idiotnot adds "Here's the article from the Sydney Morning Herald. Here is a PDF Copy of the letter." "Yours truly"?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:SCO has noticed the rope stopped moving (Score:2, Informative)
The judge wants to see the goods. He wants to see them NOW. SCO don't have no goods. He's a hanging judge.
Re:... Designated CPU's ... blech! (Score:3, Informative)
It's a common mistake (in my opinion) to rant and rave about how people who pluralise acronyms with an apostrophe are 'wrong' - it's still really a matter of personal preference and style.
At the risk of redundancy, the PDF: (Score:2, Informative)
December 18, 2003
[Name]
[Address]
Re: AT&T / SCO License No. SOFT-____
Dear UNIX Licensee:
You are designated as Licensee under the above-referenced software licensing agreement
(the "Agreement"). The undersigned SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") is the successor licensor.
The Agreement is in full force and effect according to its terms.
License Grant to Use UNIX Technology
You were granted under Para. 2.01 of the Agreement:
[A] personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use
in the [Authorized Country] each Software Product
identified in one or more Supplements hereto, solely for
Licensee's own internal business purposes and solely on or
in conjunction with Designated CPU's for such Software
Product. Such right to use includes the right to modify
such Software Product and to prepare derivative works
based such Software Product, provided that the resulting
materials are treated hereunder as part of the original
Software Product.
The Software Product thus includes more than the base System V release licensed by
you. Software Products also includes: (a) the UNIX software release based on UNIX
System V prepared by your UNIX vendor and (b) modifications to, or derivative works
based on, any UNIX product made by you.
Limitations on Use of UNIX Technology
Your limitations on use and other obligations under the Agreement include the following:
Para. 2.05. No right is granted by this Agreement for the
use of Software Products directly for others, or for any use
of Software Products by others. [This is expanded under
2.06 under some contracts.]
Para. 4.01. Licensee agrees that it will not, without prior
written consent of [SCO], export, directly or indirectly,
Software Products covered by this Agreement to any
country outside the[Authorized Country].
Para. 7.06(a) [7.05(a). Licensee agrees that it shall hold all
parts of the Software Products subject to this Agreement in
confidence for [SCO]. Licensee further agrees that it shall
not make any disclosure of any or all of the Software
Products (including methods or concepts utilized therein) to
anyone, except to employees of Licensee to whom such
disclosure is necessary to the use for which rights are
granted hereunder. Licensee shall appropriately notify each
employee to whom such disclosure is made that such
disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept in
confidence by such employee.
Para. 7.09. Neither this Agreement nor any rights
hereunder, in whole or in part, shall be assignable or
otherwise transferable by Licensee and any purported
assignment or transfer shall be null and void.
Para. 7.10. [N]othing in this Agreement grants to Licensee
the right to sell, lease, or otherwise transfer or dispose of a
Software Product in whole or in part.
Required Certification Re: Use of UNIX
You are also obligated to certify proper use of the Software Products by you under the
Agreement, as required by the following Para. 2.04 2.05:
On [SCO's] request, but not more frequently than annually,
Licensee shall furnish to SCO a statement, certified by an
authorized representative of Licensee, listing the location,
type and serial number of all Designated CPUs hereunder
and stating that the use by Licensee of Software Products
subject to this Agreement has been reviewed and that each
such Software Product is being used solely on such
Designated CPUs (or temporarily on back-up CPUs) for
such Software Products in full compliance with the
provisions of this Agreement. (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, SCO requires written certification by your authorized representative
under Para. 2.04 within 30 days of receipt of this letter. Such written certification must
include statements that:
1. You are not running Linux binary code that was compiled from any version of Linux
that contains our copyrighte
Hell no. (Score:2, Informative)
Pro-forma, yes. Not GAAP. Guess which system Enron used till the end?
Re:Isn't their 30 days almost up? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:... Designated CPU's ... blech! (Score:2, Informative)
Interview with Darl, (Score:2, Informative)
Article Title: "$3 Billion Damage Claim Justified, Says CEO"
Author: KEN SPENCER BROWN
Section: Internet & Technology
Date: 12/23/2003
IBD: But don't people have the right to give away their work through a GPL if they so choose?
McBride: Absolutely, we don't deny that right at all. Anybody that wants to develop their work and give it away, God bless them. [He accepts the validity of the GPL right here. SCO gave away software under the GPL, they can't take that back.]
What we have a major, violent reaction to is people giving away works we have control rights over. Obviously what (IBM) is trying to do here is to commoditize the operating system, i.e. the price should be zero. They think the margins should be in the hardware, middleware and services. Not coincidentally, that's where their strengths are.
[Yes, but you distributed software under the GPL, hence you no longer have "control rights" (assuming, arguendo, you did before).]
IBD: Why haven't you publicly revealed the lines of Unix code you say IBM copied into Linux?
McBride: What we have told people is: "Here are the files. Here are all the program names IBM has contributed into Linux. These were all developed under our Unix contract licenses." What we are doing now is breaking that down into a line-by-line format. So if someone doesn't want to take the time, we will absolutely be producing that with these next lawsuits.
[So, with the next lawsuits, he *claims* they'll show the code.]
IBD: Why are you pursuing action against Linux users and not Linux distributors, like Red Hat Inc.?
McBride: The Linux marketplace is very complex and convoluted. You have many players involved in this. The godfather of Linux is really IBM, and that's where we started our claims. They're really at the top of the heap here.
At the end of the line is the end user. And so that's where we go with our claims next. The Free Software Foundation says it's ludicrous for SCO to be going after an end user. They say it's like a reader going into Barnes & Noble reading a book and telling them they can't read those words or we're going to sue. But it's actually much different than that analogy.
First, when a user gets Linux, they inherit a license agreement called the GPL (General Public License) that says you get this product free of charge, so if you have a problem with it, don't come back to us, you're on your own. The words in the GPL are "as is." It pushes all of the liability to the end user.
The second part where their example breaks down is the fact that the end users are part of the problem - they're making copies themselves. What you'll see SCO coming out with in the next few weeks are examples of copyrighted code of ours that have been put into Linux, and the copyrights have been stripped off.
If a reader goes home with a book, reads it, reproduces it and gives it to 500 friends, they are direct infringers. What we see happening here is nine out of 10 boxes of Linux out in the marketplace aren't paid for at all, even if they'd paid for a support contract. Once they get that Linux in their shop, they're free to reproduce it and send it around to their heart's content. They do, in fact, become copyright infringers. That's why we're going there.
[And lets see, SCO distributed software under a LICENSE that allows you to copy the software! So, who's fault if people have accepted that license?]
IBD: Some have accused SCO of using the lawsuit as a ploy to be acquired, something also hinted at by your agreements with your lawyers. Are you in talks with anyone?
McBride: I can say generically that there
Re:Phew... (Score:5, Informative)
A book (Score:5, Informative)
a) was known
b) had published the information with intent that it might be used in other's code
c) and therefore did not consider this code a "trade secret"
What this means is that in SCO's example if they are claiming copyright violation then they've crossed over from a stupid civil suit to blatent criminal acts (i.e. its a felony to claim the copyright on something you do not have the rights to)
Comments are copyrightable (Score:3, Informative)
Now the particular comments that SCO pointed out were the actual error messages printed out by the system in association with the various errors the system was prepared to report. Since the text of these messages is largely dictated by POSIX, it is no surprise that they often match SCO's even though the enumeration of them can and does vary on some architectures.
The USL Case (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Why would I do that? (Score:3, Informative)
Now, if they were asking random Linux users it would be another story.
Re:Yours truly (Score:3, Informative)
But yes, the double meaning is interesting. I wonder if they considered "sincerely" and "faithfully" as alternatives and decided this was the least of three evils. Just "Yours" would have done. Or perhaps "Sod off"...
Meet them on their own terms (Score:5, Informative)
For example, the day before the deadline, send a letter explaining there are exigent circumstances, and asking for a 90-day extension of the deadline.
Repeat until SCO says no, then send a "please accept under separate cover" letter, referring to a document that seems to have gotten lost in the mail. Buy more time by "searcing" for the lost document.
When SCO demands a new copy of the document be prepared and sent, send an open envelope, and marvel at the bad luck that the contents of the envelope have been lost.
So on and so forth.
All you have to do is stall until SCO is killed by the big guys.
Re:Were letters actually sent? (Score:4, Informative)
According to scox's contract with novell, scox can not terminate anybody's UNIX license without expressed permission from novell. I think the contract is available on groklaw.net.