10 Mar
2003
10 Mar
'03
1:21 a.m.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees SCO's recent legal
activities with dismay. For those of you still looking for facts,
take a look at the links off http://www.sco.com/scosource/, and
particularly the complaint at
http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html. There are a
number of things there which concern me, but particularly:
85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the
simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on
the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can
successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous
operation. This difference in memory management performance
is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely
high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to
accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and
SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for
design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth
of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.
Apart from the fact that I can't see any factual evidence that System
V as licensed from SCO or its predecessors had any competitive SMP
scalability, the "20 years" concerns me. That could go back to the
days of the Seventh Edition.
Which brings me to the real point: a little over a year ago, we
received a message from Dion Johnson releasing Ancient UNIX under a
BSD licence. For those of you who have misplaced it, I'm attaching it
again. While none of us doubt that it is genuine, SCO has no record
of it on their web site, nor (as far as I know) do any of us have this
in signed form. In view of SCO's aggression, I think we should
contact them and ask them to at least put the statement somewhere on
their web site.
Comments?
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
10 Mar
10 Mar
2:33 a.m.
Greg,
I can't properly read your pdf attachment.
Some of us have a signed, dated, and numbered license and paid $100 for it!
Dave
Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees SCO's recent legal
activities with dismay. For those of you still looking for facts,
take a look at the links off http://www.sco.com/scosource/, and
particularly the complaint at
http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html. There are a
number of things there which concern me, but particularly:
85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the
simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on
the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can
successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous
operation. This difference in memory management performance
is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely
high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to
accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and
SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for
design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth
of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.
Apart from the fact that I can't see any factual evidence that System
V as licensed from SCO or its predecessors had any competitive SMP
scalability, the "20 years" concerns me. That could go back to the
days of the Seventh Edition.
Which brings me to the real point: a little over a year ago, we
received a message from Dion Johnson releasing Ancient UNIX under a
BSD licence. For those of you who have misplaced it, I'm attaching it
again. While none of us doubt that it is genuine, SCO has no record
of it on their web site, nor (as far as I know) do any of us have this
in signed form. In view of SCO's aggression, I think we should
contact them and ask them to at least put the statement somewhere on
their web site.
Comments?
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Liberal license for ancient UNIX sources
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:03:37 -0800
From: Dion Johnson <dionj(a)caldera.com>
To: wht(a)minnie.tuhs.org
CC: dmr(a)bell-labs.com, ken(a)plan9.bell-labs.com, grog(a)lemis.com,
John Terpstra <jht(a)caldera.com>om>, drew(a)caldera.com, maddog(a)li.org,
evan(a)starnix.com, phatch(a)caldera.com, ransom(a)caldera.com
Dear Warren, and friends,
I'm happy to let you know that Caldera International has placed
the ancient UNIX releases (V1-7 and 32V) under a "BSD-style" license.
I've attached a PDF of the license letter hereto. Feel free to
propogate it as you see fit.
I apologize that this has taken so long. We do not have a well
regulated archive of these ancient releases, so we must depend
upon you UNIX enthusiasts, historians, and original authors to
help the community of interested parties figure out exactly what
is available, where, and how.
Many thanks to Warren Toomey, of PUPS, and to Caldera's Bill
Broderick, director of licensing services here. Both of these
gentlemen were instrumental in making this happen. And thanks
to our CEO, Ransom Love, whose vision for Caldera International
prescribes cooperation and mutual respect for the open source
communities.
Of course, there are thousands of other people who should be
acknowledged. I regret I do not have time or wisdom to make
a list of them all, but maybe someone does, or has.
Anyway, here it is. Feel free to write to us if you want to
understand more about how/why Caldera International has released
this code, or you have any other comments that we should hear.
Sincerely,
Dion L. Johnson II - dionj(a)caldera.com
Product Manager and one of many open source enthusiasts in Caldera Intl.
Paul Hatch - phatch(a)caldera.com
Public Relations Manager at Caldera International
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: ancient-source-all.pdf
ancient-source-all.pdf Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Encoding: quoted-printable
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
--
David C. Jenner
djenner(a)earthlink.net
3:28 a.m.
On 2003-Mar-09 18:33:34 -0800, "David C. Jenner" <djenner(a)earthlink.net>
wrote:
I can't properly read your pdf attachment.
It was attached as "text/plain" instead of PDF. If I save it, xpdf
displays it correctly.
Some of us have a signed, dated, and numbered license
and paid $100 for it!
The critical bit of Greg's mail relates to the release of Ancient UNIX
under a BSD license. Your "signed, dated, and numbered license" states
that Ancient UNIX contains trade secret information.
Peter
8:23 p.m.
Your "signed, dated, and numbered license"
states that Ancient UNIX
contains trade secret information.
This probably all comes down to whether or not IBM breached any NDAs it had
with SCO. Trade secrets in and of themselves IIRC do not have any statutory
protection in the United States. Once they're leaked, they aren't secrets
any more. IANAL, TINLA.
--
Jeffrey Sharp
3:13 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
To: UNIX Heritage Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
Which brings me to the real point: a little over a year ago, we
received a message from Dion Johnson releasing Ancient UNIX under a
BSD licence. For those of you who have misplaced it, I'm attaching it
again. While none of us doubt that it is genuine, SCO has no record
of it on their web site, nor (as far as I know) do any of us have this
in signed form. In view of SCO's aggression, I think we should
contact them and ask them to at least put the statement somewhere on
their web site.
While I can't comment on the current legal issues, I was involved
in the decision to release the "Ancient UNIX" source code under a
BSD style license and I am not aware of anything having changed
in that area.
I will, however, ask for an "official" statement of SCO's current
position on "Ancient UNIX" - I expect that this will take a few
days but I should have an answer by the end of the week.
Michael Davidson
8:21 p.m.
On Sunday, March 9, 2003, Michael Davidson wrote:
I will, however, ask for an "official"
statement of SCO's current position
on "Ancient UNIX"
But once they've released it under a BSD-style license, it is released. They
simply can't unrelease it. They don't have to continue distributing it, but
they can't stop me from doing what the license explicitly allows. So their
current position WRT ancient UNIX may not mave much legal weight. IANAL,
TINLA.
--
Jeffrey Sharp
9:15 p.m.
On 2003-Mar-10 14:21:00 -0600, Jeffrey Sharp <jss(a)subatomix.com> wrote:
On Sunday, March 9, 2003, Michael Davidson wrote:
AFAIK, the only evidence we have that it is released under a BSD-style
license is an e-mail allegedly from an authorised person within SCO.
Warren has not been able to find an equivalent statement on their
website. I suspect Warren is concerned that they could claim it was
never released - ie the e-mail is a faked/forged or the sender didn't
have the authority to make the claims therein.
What would you do if SCO's lawyers came knocking on your door and
demanded you cease distributing ancient UNIX or derived products?
Whilst you could probably prove the authenticity of the e-mail, this
would cost real money - and SCO probably can afford to spend a lot
more money than you can.
The date of the e-mail may also be a crucial issue - since IBM would
presumably have the right to use the code after SCO changed the code
to a BSD license.
IANAL, TINLA etc.
Peter
I will, however, ask for an "official"
statement of SCO's current position
on "Ancient UNIX"
But once they've released it under a BSD-style license, it is released. They
simply can't unrelease it. They don't have to continue distributing it, but
they can't stop me from doing what the license explicitly allows. So their
current position WRT ancient UNIX may not mave much legal weight. IANAL,
TINLA.
9:54 p.m.
Warren has a signed, dated, and numbered license for Ancient Unix (AU-0).
I have a signed, dated, and numbered license for Ancient Unix (AU-1).
I don't see how Warren can't distribute to me any software covered under the
license.
Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2003-Mar-10 14:21:00 -0600, Jeffrey Sharp <jss(a)subatomix.com> wrote:
--
David C. Jenner
djenner(a)earthlink.net
On Sunday, March 9, 2003, Michael Davidson wrote:
AFAIK, the only evidence we have that it is released under a BSD-style
license is an e-mail allegedly from an authorised person within SCO.
Warren has not been able to find an equivalent statement on their
website. I suspect Warren is concerned that they could claim it was
never released - ie the e-mail is a faked/forged or the sender didn't
have the authority to make the claims therein.
What would you do if SCO's lawyers came knocking on your door and
demanded you cease distributing ancient UNIX or derived products?
Whilst you could probably prove the authenticity of the e-mail, this
would cost real money - and SCO probably can afford to spend a lot
more money than you can.
The date of the e-mail may also be a crucial issue - since IBM would
presumably have the right to use the code after SCO changed the code
to a BSD license.
IANAL, TINLA etc.
Peter
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs I will, however, ask for an "official"
statement of SCO's current position
on "Ancient UNIX"
But once they've released it under a BSD-style license, it is released. They
simply can't unrelease it. They don't have to continue distributing it, but
they can't stop me from doing what the license explicitly allows. So their
current position WRT ancient UNIX may not mave much legal weight. IANAL,
TINLA.
11:45 p.m.
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 8:15:18 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2003-Mar-10 14:21:00 -0600, Jeffrey Sharp
<jss(a)subatomix.com> wrote:
I think you mean me, not Warren. Warren hasn't said anything yet.
My concern is not whether it's genuine--I'm convinced it is. My
concern is more whether SCO's apparently bone-headed lawyers will
believe it's genuine.
On Sunday, March 9, 2003, Michael Davidson
wrote:
AFAIK, the only evidence we have that it is released under a BSD-style
license is an e-mail allegedly from an authorised person within SCO.
Warren has not been able to find an equivalent statement on their
website. I suspect Warren is concerned that they could claim it was
never released - ie the e-mail is a faked/forged or the sender didn't
have the authority to make the claims therein. I will, however, ask for an "official"
statement of SCO's current position
on "Ancient UNIX"
But once they've released it under a BSD-style license, it is released. They
simply can't unrelease it. They don't have to continue distributing it, but
they can't stop me from doing what the license explicitly allows. So their
current position WRT ancient UNIX may not mave much legal weight. IANAL,
TINLA. What would you do if SCO's lawyers came knocking
on your door and
demanded you cease distributing ancient UNIX or derived products?
Yes, this is the point.
Whilst you could probably prove the authenticity of
the e-mail, this
would cost real money - and SCO probably can afford to spend a lot
more money than you can.
It's not clear how much money SCO has.
The date of the e-mail may also be a crucial issue -
since IBM would
presumably have the right to use the code after SCO changed the code
to a BSD license.
I am very sure that IBM has not put any UNIX code into Linux. For one
thing, it's not their style, and in fact they keep the AIX and Linux
people very separate. Last year I wrote a clone of AIX's JFS file
system on Linux for IBM. This is the old JFS, not the JFS they
released under GPL. I was not allowed to see the AIX source code, for
exactly the reasons of the complaint. The only information I had were
the header files they distribute with the development system.
The AIX code wouldn't have helped, anyway. Linux is not UNIX, as
anybody who's done kernel programming in both knows. I had thought
that this childish superstition about the holiness of source code
would have been stamped out at the end of the last UNIX wars.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
11 Mar
11 Mar
12:22 a.m.
On 2003-Mar-11 10:15:48 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
wrote:
Probably more than you or I do...
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 8:15:18 +1100, Peter
Jeremy wrote:
I think you mean me, not Warren. Warren hasn't said anything yet.
Oops. Sorry about that. "My mind is going... I can feel it, Dave"
My concern is not whether it's genuine--I'm
convinced it is. My
concern is more whether SCO's apparently bone-headed lawyers will
believe it's genuine.
Taking the devil's advocate position, if my lawyers were convinced
that I'm made a particular statement, based solely on a piece of
e-mail given to them by my competition, I'd be in the market for
some new lawyers.
Whilst you
could probably prove the authenticity of the e-mail, this
would cost real money - and SCO probably can afford to spend a lot
more money than you can.
It's not clear how much money SCO has. I am very sure that IBM has not put any UNIX code into
Linux.
I'd be very surprised at this as well. It would open a legal minefield.
Peter
1:14 a.m.
Hello from Gregg C Levine
You guys will never guess where I first saw this issue raised.
Personally I don't think IBM would be as stupid as SCO wants them to
be. If anything SCO is looking at a wash of red ink, because Caldera
was actually doing badly in the Linux field, and SCO saw its own
profits waste away, after Linux took off, like a heard of elephants.
And for that matter, having read the PDF that contains the license
statement, twice now, I am convinced of one thing, okay two. SCO is
desperate for cash. And some idiot in their legal department thinks
suing IBM will help.
And those are only opinions mind you, nothing more.
Besides, I'm convinced SCO should just forget about the versions of
UNIX that we run on such programs as SIMH, and even E-11, and
sometimes on a real hardware.
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
this
Probably more than you or I do...
minefield.
-----Original Message-----
From: tuhs-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:tuhs-admin@minnie.tuhs.org]
On
Behalf Of Peter Jeremy
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:22 PM
To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey
Cc: UNIX Heritage Society
Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
On 2003-Mar-11 10:15:48 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11
March 2003 at 8:15:18 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I think you mean me, not Warren. Warren hasn't said anything yet.
Oops. Sorry about that. "My mind is going... I can feel it, Dave"
My concern is not whether it's
genuine--I'm convinced it is. My
concern is more whether SCO's apparently bone-headed lawyers will
believe it's genuine.
Taking the devil's advocate position, if my lawyers were convinced
that I'm made a particular statement, based solely on a piece of
e-mail given to them by my competition, I'd be in the market for
some new lawyers.
>> Whilst you could probably prove the authenticity of the e-mail, >> would cost real money - and SCO probably can
afford to spend a
lot
more money than you can.
It's not clear how much money SCO has. I am very sure that IBM has not put any UNIX code
into Linux.
I'd be very surprised at this as well. It would open a legal
Peter
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
1:51 a.m.
I've just read through the TUHS mail: SCO vs. IBM.
I think we're missing the point a bit. The Caldera license places the
UNIX research editions 1 to 7, and 32V, under a BSD-style license.
Later systems such as System III and System V are not covered.
Although the Caldera license helps protect the newer BSDs from license
infringement, SCO/Caldera can still sue anybody if they believe that
their IP from System III/System V and on has been violated.
IBM has a source license to System V and has contributed to Linux.
I think that this is the approach that SCO/Caldera are taking in the
lawsuit.
The BSDs are more immune here, unless BSDI or Apple also have a System V
source license. [ Er, um, given the existence of Apples A/UX, they probably
do. Ah, I should have kept my mouth shut :-) ]
So: I don't think the BSDs or the Unix Archive are under any immediate
threat. I agree with whoever that suggested that SCO/Caldera are doing
this as a means of raising revenue.
Just my $0.02 here.
Warren
1:59 a.m.
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 11:51:28 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
I've just read through the TUHS mail: SCO vs.
IBM.
I think we're missing the point a bit. The Caldera license places
the UNIX research editions 1 to 7, and 32V, under a BSD-style
license. Later systems such as System III and System V are not
covered.
Yes, maybe you're missing the point. My concern was that the Caldera
license has never been signed, and that they don't have anything about
it on their web site.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
3:51 a.m.
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:29:39PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
Yes, that's true. I hadn't missed it, but I hadn't started to worry
about it yet. Wait till Uncle Caldera gives me a phone call .....
Warren
I think
we're missing the point a bit.
Yes, maybe you're missing the point. My concern was that the Caldera
license has never been signed, and that they don't have anything about
it on their web site.
Greg
4:11 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy(a)alcatel.com.au>
To: Jeffrey Sharp <jss(a)subatomix.com>
Cc: UNIX Heritage Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
I can assure you that the email from Dion Johnson was and is genuine.
The release of "Ancient UNIX" under a BSD license was agreed to by
Ransom Love (then president and CEO of Caldera), Drew Spencer
(then CTO of Caldera), Dion, myself and others.
I realise that some people are concerned that they can no longer find
the "Ancient UNIX" license on the SCO web site - I wouldn't read too
much into that - the "Ancient UNIX" stuff was always tucked away in
an obscure corner - I suspect that the link to it just got lost when we
stopped doing free evaluation licenses for the current product.
Anyway, as I said, I will try to get an "official statement" about the
"Ancient UNIX" license by the end of the week - I expect that statement
will simply re-affirm what you already know - ie that it has been released
under a BSD license, and possibly re-emphasize the fact that System III,
and System V are *NOT* covered by that license.
(However, I am *not* in a position where I can make such a statement
on behalf on SCO which is why I'm afraid you will have to wait a few
days so that I can get you the "official" position).
On 2003-Mar-10 14:21:00 -0600, Jeffrey Sharp
<jss(a)subatomix.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, March 9, 2003, Michael Davidson wrote:
>> I will, however, ask for an "official" statement of SCO's current
position
>> on "Ancient UNIX"
>
>But once they've released it under a BSD-style license, it is released.
They
>simply can't unrelease it. They don't
have to continue distributing it,
but
>they can't stop me from doing what the
license explicitly allows. So
their
current
position WRT ancient UNIX may not mave much legal weight. IANAL,
TINLA.
AFAIK, the only evidence we have that it is released under a BSD-style
license is an e-mail allegedly from an authorised person within SCO.
Warren has not been able to find an equivalent statement on their
website. I suspect Warren is concerned that they could claim it was
never released - ie the e-mail is a faked/forged or the sender didn't
have the authority to make the claims therein.
9:44 a.m.
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:11:20PM -0800, Michael Davidson wrote:
I realise that some people are concerned that they can
no longer find
the "Ancient UNIX" license on the SCO web site - I wouldn't read too
much into that - the "Ancient UNIX" stuff was always tucked away in
an obscure corner - I suspect that the link to it just got lost when we
stopped doing free evaluation licenses for the current product.
Concerning the former, "strictly educational" license:
It doesn't seem to be linked, but is still available at
<http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient.html>
It's functional and pointing to downloadable source.
Sven
3:40 p.m.
Hello from Gregg C Levine
Well if anyone else is interested in my opinions, the pages that
originate at that link, make a reference to the code that resides at
Warren's repository, it even calls it by name. A proper one even.
So, I'm in the process of downloading the contents that I am
interested in, in case the site gets pulled down. I know everything
will still exist on Warren's site.
I suspect this will get settled out of court. And I still think SCO
should just give it up, and place everything except their current
products in the public domain. That is put what we run, and what they
are concerned about in that legal black hole, and find a public
administrator who knows computers to manage it..
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon(a)worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
-----Original Message-----
From: tuhs-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:tuhs-admin@minnie.tuhs.org]
On
Behalf Of Sven Mascheck
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:44 AM
To: UNIX Heritage Society
Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 08:11:20PM -0800, Michael Davidson wrote:
> I realise that some people are concerned that they can no longer
find
> the "Ancient UNIX" license on the SCO
web site - I wouldn't read
too
> much into that - the "Ancient UNIX"
stuff was always tucked away
in
> an obscure corner - I suspect that the link to it
just got lost
when we
stopped doing
free evaluation licenses for the current product.
Concerning the former, "strictly educational" license:
It doesn't seem to be linked, but is still available at
<http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient.html>
It's functional and pointing to downloadable source.
Sven
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
12 Mar
12 Mar
4:05 a.m.
On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, Gregg C Levine wrote:
I suspect this will get settled out of court. And I
still think SCO should
just give it up, and place everything except their current products in the
public domain.
A large number of people on Slashdot are saying that SCO's market
capitalization is around $26 million. If that is correct, settling out of
court may involve more traders than lawyers. This may simply be SCO's exit
strategy, designed to get the most money for its investors. And of course,
if I read it on Slashdot it must be true.
--
Jeffrey Sharp
4:46 a.m.
On Monday, March 10, 2003, Peter Jeremy wrote:
The date of the e-mail may also be a crucial issue -
since IBM would
presumably have the right to use the code after SCO changed the code to a
BSD license.
Does the suit involve code xor concepts? If the patents are on concepts,
then any sufficiently similar implementation might infringe upon the patent,
no matter how untainted its code is. This case has the potential to go
horribly, horribly awry if a stupid judge sits on the bench.
--
Jeffrey Sharp
5:03 a.m.
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 22:46:04 -0600, Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
On Monday, March 10, 2003, Peter Jeremy wrote:
I this subthread is off the mark. I'm personally convinced that IBM
never used any licensed UNIX technology in Linux.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
The date of the e-mail may also be a crucial
issue - since IBM would
presumably have the right to use the code after SCO changed the code to a
BSD license.
Does the suit involve code xor concepts? If the patents are on concepts,
then any sufficiently similar implementation might infringe upon the patent,
no matter how untainted its code is. This case has the potential to go
horribly, horribly awry if a stupid judge sits on the bench.
8:31 p.m.
On 2003-Mar-12 15:33:12 +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 22:46:04 -0600, Jeffrey
Sharp wrote:
> Does the suit involve code xor concepts? If the patents are on concepts,
> then any sufficiently similar implementation might infringe upon the patent,
> no matter how untainted its code is. This case has the potential to go
> horribly, horribly awry if a stupid judge sits on the bench.
There's no reference anywhere in SCO's suit to patents. The suit is
based on misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract and
unfair competition.
The "misappropriation of trade secrets" and "breach of contract"
seems
to be based on the premise that since AIX is based on UNIX, _all_ of
AIX is therefore covered by the terms of IBM's source code license for
UNIX. There are regular whinges about the viral nature of GPL, but
this is the first time I've seen someone claim the the UNIX license
was viral - and the USL case pretty well demonstrated the opposite.
4.4BSD-Lite is clear evidence that it's possible to take a UNIX
derivative, developed with full access to UNIX source code, and
produce a product that is not covered by UNIX licenses.
The basis of the "unfair competition" seems to be that IBM can afford
more staff than SCO can. IBM's had plenty of practise at defending
itself against unfair competition claims in the past...
I this subthread is off the mark. I'm personally
convinced that IBM
never used any licensed UNIX technology in Linux.
Agreed. I don't see that SCO has a leg to stand on. The only way I
can see for them to win would be a combination of an incompetent
judge and managing to bamboozle a not-technically-savvy jury.
IANAL, TINLA etc
Peter
8:33 p.m.
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:33:12 +1030
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog(a)lemis.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, truth and morals often don't count in court. It's
what your lawyers can prove. That's why SCO engaged David Boies.
They want to win - just like in the Microsoft case - a true
miscarriage of justice.
Much will indeed depend on the judge. There isn't a lot of precedent
to support open source and public interest software, but there is a
lot to support patent and copyright. It will be difficult for a
senior citizen (the judge) to understand computers and free
software, let alone the interaction between IBM and the community.
bill
Does the suit
involve code xor concepts? If the patents are on
concepts, then any sufficiently similar implementation might
infringe upon the patent, no matter how untainted its code is.
This case has the potential to go horribly, horribly awry if a
stupid judge sits on the bench.
I this subthread is off the mark. I'm personally convinced that
IBM never used any licensed UNIX technology in Linux.
11 Mar
11 Mar
3:51 a.m.
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:51:47 +1030
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog(a)lemis.com> wrote:
I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees
SCO's recent legal
activities with dismay.
More and more I come to the conclusion that intellectual property is
a bad idea. Physical property fine, but intellectual
property/patents etc seems to be a get rich scheme for lawyers,
executives and investors. This latest exploit is just another proof
that information needs at least a limited amount of freedom - like
the human minds that create it.
bill
7726
days inactive
7728
days old
22 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
David C. Jenner -
Greg 'groggy' Lehey -
Gregg C Levine -
Jeffrey Sharp -
Michael Davidson -
Peter Jeremy -
Sven Mascheck -
Warren Toomey -
Wm. G. McGrath