As if the SCO Group doesn’t have their hands full with the MyDoom worm, recent updates in the Linux lawsuits have caused quite a stir. The folks at Groklaw have transcribed all of the documentation in which SCO details the code they claim to own. But now it looks like SCO’s argument, which is based on their definition of “derivative code,” may be contradicted by AT&T, who not only wrote the original code, but wrote about this exact scenario in $echo …in 1985!
SCO Roundup: Is The End In Sight?
About The Author
Adam Scheinberg
Technology Executive • Web Developer • Father • Foodie • Music Snob • OS enthusiast
Follow me on Mastodon @[email protected]
That, my friends, is a S-W-E-E-T sound. The sound of the proverbial “fat lady” singing!
Yes! This is some of the best news I have heard in a while. For those who won’t read the article (and I suggest everyone does) it basically says that AT&T says that their derivative code clause doesn’t mean they own any code added to UNIX by third parties. Since this is the foundation of SCO’s legal case against IBM, they are basically up the creek without a paddle.
Also, when are they going to sue end users again, thought that was supposed to be this week, I was a little disappointed. :p
Any lawyers out there reading this? Is there any chance that we can retaliate against SCO by starting a class action lawsuit on behalf of all Linux users? That would be pretty funny I think. Don’t know if that’s possible though.
“It’s better to be thought of as an idiot than to open your mouth and prove it.” Darl’s learning that one the hard way I guess
Anything is possibile if you have the money!
As if the SCO Group doesn’t have their hands full with the MyDoom virus
Excuse me? MyDoom.A targetted http://www.sco.com, which does not exist any more. You must be aware of that fact since you hyper linked to the new web page http://www.thescogroup.com. Now, I ask you, how on earth is MyDoom.A impacting SCO?!?!?!? For those who are in the dark about the virus, it has been found that a small percentage will perform a DOS attack on http://www.sco.com, which is a smoke screen for the rest of the infections to leave the workstation a zombie to participate in SPAM. See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040208151541938 and http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040218161420770
I am NOT familiar with US law, so I’m basing in European one… The fact that AT&T wrote, in a newsletter, that it did not INTEND to pursue rights over derivative work is not legally binding, i.e., one company’s interpretation is as good as the others and only a) a new license or b) a court decision has the power to “enforce” one view on the license.
Anybody with a wider knowledge of copyright law care to clarify?
Thanks
Finally ! the last time SCO is on the headlines… except for the future announce of their bankruptcy
It looks like Computerworld dislikes OSNews. The direct link fails with a wishy-washy excuse. To avoid this just copy the link and paste it into a new window or tab.
<joke>
So many licensing posibilitties here:
http://shop.sco.com/caldera/summary.jsp?collection=Scosource
Buy one that fits your needs:)
Care to be legal?
</joke>
Anyone looking at the first linux kernel source code, up until now, going trough changelogs and even code auditing is possible since it’s open source, will notice that there is no IP violation.
What SCO said up until now was:
1) First, they said that their code was not in the kernel space.
2) Then they said that it was there but din’t know who put it there.
3) Then they said that they know what code it is but din’t want to show it to the world, only if you would sign an NDA… Which is very stupid since the Linux kernel is open source anyway.
Enyone who can think on this planet and in this country (USA), can see that this is a hoax. The whole SCO lawsuit thing is a HOAX. Anyone who is alittle bit knowledgible about US law knows that when you go in court and testify about something, you have to bring some proof allong to suistain your cliams. Now, would SCO make a Federal Judge sign an NDA?
Being one to investigate things – all ‘$ echo’ says reguarding the issue is refer to a software agreement update, and hence the exact wording in ‘$ echo’ is irrelevent (well… besides the obvious point that $ echo is not the software agreement in the first place:))
I’m curious if there’s a loophole out of here like the one mentioned above (read: intended not to vs. contractually unable to). It seems to me that $ echo refers to an update which wholly removes the ability to claim ownership of 3rd party code (just as it seems to virtually everyone else), however – it does not rule out the possibility of what cfduarte was saying… so frankly, I’m interested in seeing what that agreement actually said.
Also – I’m not a lawyer and frankly, I just don’t know – but is it possible that a revision to the agreement by the owners of unix could have withdrawn that portion of the agreement pro-actively from the date of the change in the agreement, and if so – would it have to be done explicitly?
Since this contract was originally from AT&T, any statements they made about the intent of the contract can be used in a contract dispute. SCO, being the new owner, can’t claim to know what AT&T’s intentions were.
SCO is saying, “we have the contract know and we want it to mean this,” changing the rules in the middle of the game.
AT&T says, “we were the original party in the contract and this is what we meant.”
AT&T’s statements can be used in court. IANAL btw, just what I’ve picked up on groklaw.
“$ echo” is notifying it’s users what AT&T was restricting in dirived works. The orginial text in the license was basically “any modified files are covered under the NDA”. The contract was later changed to read “any modified files belong to you, but any of my code in the file are still under the NDA”.
IBM’s contract has a side letter including the revised wording. The DYNX contract was taken out after the 1985 “$ echo” and should also contain the revised wording.
As far as “$ echo” not being allowable in court, it is. From the groklaw site, the lawyers have stated that if the contract is not clear on a subject, then the two parties can each explain what the contract ment to them when they signed it. The “$ echo” clearly states what AT&T thought the contract said and IBM has already stated that the were under the believe that it ment the same thing. The SCO Group was never a party to the contract and thus their meaning is questionable.
I’m not too familiar with the copyright law so correct me if I’m wrong. I don’t think this newsletter will mean very much in the courts. The reason is that it was written 10 years before SCO bought Unix from AT&T. When SCO did purchase Unix, the contract it had with AT&T may specify whether derivative works of Unix belong back to SCO. If there is such a clause in the agreement, this newsletter has no value in the lawsuit because the contract would have been changed.
The important thing to look at here instead of the newsletter is to see what contract SCO made with AT&T and what rights it bought.
Just imagine the sheer waste of money this is for SCO. Waste of time too by the sound of this excellent link. There seems to be one born every minute in management these days.
Still there is one large benefit to all of this crap. Lawyers get to charge big, fat fees – and that seems to be the name of the game for some companies today. Forget the core business – find out who we can sue – there is more money to be had for doing nought.
Bad companies resort to lawyers in my humble opinion.
mB, you are mistaken. SCO Group(the company currently suing IBM) did not purchase the license from ATT.
ATT sold Unix to Novell(through USL), who in turn sold *PART* of it to Santa Cruz Organization who in turn sold it to Caldera who then changed names to Sco Group(Santa Cruz Organization is now called Tarantella).
Sco Group never was a original party to the ATT sale of Unix or the licensing from ATT to IBM, etc…
for what is known, the portions of Unix that Novel sold to Santa Cruz Org was merely the sale/licensing armof Unix. the Trademarks for Unix were sold/given to another party, and Novell kept the copyrights for themselves.
Novell is also entitled to 95% of all license fees Santa Cruz, Caldera or SCO Group made with respect to Unix licensing.
I’m sure I may have missed a couple things here and there so if anyone needs to correct me. . .
“The reason is that it was written 10 years before SCO bought Unix from AT&T. When SCO did purchase Unix, the contract it had with AT&T may specify whether derivative works of Unix belong back to SCO. If there is such a clause in the agreement, this newsletter has no value in the lawsuit because the contract would have been changed.”
Except that no contract can be changed unilaterally. SCO cannot buy AT&T’s interest in a contract with IBM, and then say they don’t like this particular term, so we are changing it (which is what they are doing BTW).
If AT&T, through Novell and oldSCO represented to Caldera (newSCO) that all derivative code is owned by SCO, this was clearly not true and SCO’s beef is with the company they bought SysV from, not IBM.
“Also – I’m not a lawyer and frankly, I just don’t know – but is it possible that a revision to the agreement by the owners of unix could have withdrawn that portion of the agreement pro-actively from the date of the change in the agreement, and if so – would it have to be done explicitly?”
JFS is not a “derivative work,” under any definition of copyright law. JFS could only be considered a derivative work if one subscribes to the whacko definition of derivative work that SCO is claiming. So even if there existed a court document that would prove that derivative works belonged to SCO, they still could not lay claim to JFS and these other things they wish they owned.
If one were to believe the definiton of derivative work that SCO is claiming, then Microsoft would own Norton Anti-virus, Quickbooks, Quicken, Flash, Maya, Photoshop, etc.
Actually a better way of putting SCO’s definition of derivative work is this.
Adobe first made illustrator for the mac in the early 90’s, possible late 80’s(don’t have time for a history check now), any way since Adobe first made it for the mac Apple now controls all versions of Illustrator, as they are trying to sue the Windows users of Illustrator for using an illegal version of it. Adobe still owns the product, but can’t distribute it without approval from Apple.
As for why Judge Wells hasn’t made her desicion yet, I have a feeling she really can’t look at it with out ROFLOL.
Some have argued here that SCO may not be bound by the AT&T understanding and that in its bid to buy the vending of UNIX, it may have renegotiated the part of the license regarding derivative works.
Fortunately, this action is not legal. Caldera cannot legally change the terms of a contract which had been previously agreed to by IBM and AT&T even if it purchases (in however a roundabout way) AT&T’s interest. The derivative works clause could only have been changed by both parties involved.
AT&T understood the clause to mean that any code which was based on UNIX would be considered a derivative work but that any code which linked to the SysV code would NOT be considered derivative. IBM understood it the same way. Therefore, SCO’s (current) claim that the JFS code is a derived work is without merit.
It’s funny, but if you look at some of IBM’s current court filings and NewSCO’s response you’ll see a verry big hole in NewSCO’s case.
1) They keep claming ownership due to the Novell-OldSCO sale.
2) They can’t find the documentation for the OldSCO-NewSCO sale.
Based on #2, the courts have no record of what NewSCO acctually owns since NewSCO can’t prove that they purchased 100% of OldSCO’s ownership. Ibm has rescently started pointing this out in court since NewSCO refuses to produce the OldSCO-NewSCO sales contracts.
As of right now the stock is around 14, it’s lower than it’s highs but if this is a real scoop, we’d see a lot more volatility and probably a lower price. Put options anybody?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=SCOX&t=5d&l=on&z=m&q=l&c= Of course there’s a delay so it may already be at $.05
I just had a look at the “new” SCO site at http://www.thescogroup.com and they have something on the main page about why to chose SCO UNIX over Linux.
Number 5 on their list is “SCO UNIX® is Legally Unencumbered
“, obviously relating to the law suits currently going on.
Is it legal for SCO to advertise this is or implicate Linux in terms of legal wrong doing as part of an advertising ploy before it has been legally determined in court or is this yet another example of stupid US law?
There are two issues involved in the SCO case:
1. IBM back-stabbed SCO over their joint Project Montery system. This is the core issue over the case and SCO does have a valid case and _should_ _win_.
2. SCO’s business has gone down the tubes, due to a poor project and superior competition, especially from Linux. As a result they started their FUD campaign in an attempt to gain income in the form of racketeering.
This newly re-discovered article does not affect #1, but it should help clear the air for #2.
Damien
“An open source industry group has filed a new complaint to the Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission against controversial software company the
SCO Group, saying the vendor is attempting to alter previously granted
licenses.”
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/0,2000061733,39116222,00.htm
Sounds like slander, to me.
Part of the issue is that Dynix was under the (much more restrictive) SVR3 license. Sequent never bothered to become a SVR4 licensee, and never bothered to renegotiate the highly restrictive SVR3 license. Regardless of the outcome of the case, IBM’s lawyers *seriously* screwed up when they bought Sequent: they should have realized that they needed to go back and renegotiate the SVR3 license into the more permissive SVR4 license. It’s certainly out of character for IBM, where the law has historically been both a core competency and a competitive advantage….
They pull every illegal trick in the book and they keep rolling along. UnBelieveable!
I predict they’ll buy a judge, as their next action.
There really is no justice in the world, none at all.
How very true those words are.
So long as there are FiaSCOs in the world
All of a sudden IDG is not allowing the link to go through. Says you’re unauthorized or some such nonsense…
Isn’t it all such a coincidence?
What has happened:
SCO goes crazy about IP violations etc etc…
IBM builds a secret Linux in the Big Blue Evil Caves…
What will happen:
IBM will suddenly pay SCO some money to “legalize” their Linux
SCO will have IBM’s blessing to “rape” all the competition from Red Hat, Mandrake, Novell etc.
Linux users will be fooled just like they’ve been fooled by RMS for so long….
WoW… ain’t that some..
IBM will suddenly pay SCO some money to “legalize” their Linux
SCO will have IBM’s blessing to “rape” all the competition from Red Hat, Mandrake, Novell etc.
That’s complete nonsense.
The one and only interest IBM have in Linux is that ‘the competition’ develops it for them while keeping an open model which IBM can steer or build upon.
IBM have zero interest in the OS business and all they might have disappeared after what happened to OS/2.
Still, they cherish the dozens of OSes they’ve developed down the years. They’re just not intent on selling them. Even OS/2 was first and foremost something to make the PC work. A completely different perspective from that of MS or Linux, for whom the hardware is something to run their OSes.
Show me this newsletter that says this. Neither SCO nor Novell has it up on their site, and something like that Im sure Novell would have gladly put up on their site. In fact the only mention of it is through this guys article. i dont believe much reporters say, and I will just mark this one off as a rumor until I see some substance.
Have a look at this page on Groklaw
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040212154324447
I quote the first part
$ echo 8/85 — AT&T Made No Claim to Derivatives, Only to Software Developed by AT&T
Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 03:43 PM EST
Here is August 1985 $ echo newsletter Novell referred to and attached to its February
6, 2004 letter to SCO. The important information conveyed by this newsletter was a
change in the Software Agreement, specifically:
“Section 2.01 – The last 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.”
I also note these:
“Section 2.01(a) – First sentence revised to clarify licensee’s
obligations to satisfy U.S. Government export requirements.”
“Section 3.02 – Language deleted which allowed the termination
of the agreement by AT&T.”
The original PDF is available from Novell’s web site:
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.html
It is the second to last on the list, the second attachment to the Sequent letter of
February 6:
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/08_1985_echo.pdf/
Thanks, again, to Gerard ter Beke for transcribing.
Here is the perfect illusion.
The “Santa Clara Group” looses and is then brought up on racketeering charges.
In a related issue: The “Redmond Company” is brought up on criminal extortion charges.
* cough *
Ok maybe I missed something, it only says this:
<<< Section 2.01 – The last 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. >>>
That is a broad statement to make and one of the reasons why I always hated UNIX licensing because its catch-22, alright SGI creates a module, gave it back to USL, USL then creates their own implementation and included it in their own flavor? Who maintains ownership? USL does because now its in the main source tree and considered USL code because once you transfer ownership according to the old UNIX license you may keep copyright but ownership of the code goes to the owner of UNIX. So IBM goes to get it and now the whole thing is considered USL code and porting code to a different platform does not require you to rewrite the entire module, it only requires the hacking of a certain set. But, it depends on what SCO is accusing IBM of taking because remember, they wont get you for using your own code but if you use AT&T code thats a huge no no and if SCO can prove that IBM contributed AT&T source code, well folks game over for IBM. AT&T did this for a couple of reasons, but 1 in particular, the main reason was so the code wouldnt die, and if Dennis Ritchie for example decided to pull out of UNIX development he couldnt prohibit others from expanding on his work. The license is one of the reasons why I never messed around with the source license of UNIX, I am a binary licensee of UNIX because I bought UnixWare and at work we have two OpenServer based boxes the Unix License contradicts itself and additions and modifications that are not actually built into the original contracts somehow get tossed around and reworded and misconstrued as meaning one thing but its actually another. The UNIX licensing scheme has always been flawed and no organization is one of the key flaws. Microsofts Shared Source License is worded a lot better and gives clear understanding of what the Licensees rights are, my company is a Shared Source partner so we have that right to look at Windows source code, if I create an SMP stack for Windows thats a clean cut version meaning contains no MS code and I decide to give it to Microsoft they can include it in Windows, but I can take that same code and give it to ReactOS and FreeDOS and not be in violation, but if I take Microsofts SMP stack that they include in Windows, improve on it and enhance it to handle oh lets say 1,000 processors I can only give that code back to Microsoft, I cannot redistribute that code to ReactOS and FreeDOS because then it is considered Microsoft code and not mine. Whatever happens AT&T will have to get involved and they will have to offer explanations.
your money is in your wallet. it is called free choice. if you don’t wanna buy anything from sco, then don’t