http://www. mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story02.html

Quoting:

"MozillaQuest Magazine: Have Red Hat and/or SuSE done or are they doing something inappropriate?

"Chris Sontag: SCO is coming across things all the time that these companies will need to address at some point. We haven't decided what course of action we plan to take yet."

[...]

"MozillaQuest Magazine: When Darl said "substantial System V code showing up in Linux", did he mean the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, a Linux distribution(s), or Linux applications? If it is in the kernel, which kernel version(s)?

"Chris Sontag: We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel. (Emphasis added.)"

[...]

"MozillaQuest Magazine: The Red Hat and SuSE people with whom I have discussed the Caldera v IBM matter say that:

"(a) As far as they know there is no proprietary SCO-owned code in their Linux distributions and products, is this correct?

"Chris Sontag: No, this is not correct. We are finding SCO-owned code in their distributions. (Emphasis added.)"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Thanks Chris, I'll just compile up a vanilla kernel from kernel.org then. Oh wait! Now you want me to pay for any kernel that says 2.4... I suppose a time-travelling fairy inserted the infringing code in 2.4.0, did it? <pats Chris on head> You have to humour him, you know.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://news.com.com/2100-100 1_3-5060134.html

"Red Hat's lawsuit confirms what we've been saying all along--Linux developers are either unable or unwilling to screen the code" that goes into the Linux kernel, MacBride said. "Red Hat is selling Linux that contains verbatim and obfuscated code from Unix System 5."

"The reality here (is that) IBM and Red Hat have painted a Linux liability target on the backs of their customers," he said. "Due to IBM's and Red Hat's actions, we have no choice but to fight the battle at the end-user level."

http://silicon valley.internet.com/news/article.php/2244721

President and CEO Darl McBride called the effort a "legal shell game" and said it was Red Hat that has the faulty business model.

"IBM and Red Hat have painted a Linux liability target on their backs. We have no choice but to fight it. It wasn't the place we wanted to go, but yesterday was a push in that direction," McBride said during a conference call to reporters.

McBride called the fund "misguided" noting that SCO never intended to enforce its copyright on end users, just vendors.

"We would suggest they look at getting more money for the fund," McBride said. "With over 200 million cases of infringement out there, the price of indemnification would run into the billions of dollars.

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://linuxtoda y.com/infrastructure/2003080502026NWCDLL

During the press conference, McBride also said, "Red Hat claims that SCO is at fault for Red Hat's loss of business. We believe it's not our fault. We believe Red Hat is losing business because Red Hat has a faulty business model and that the business model's real problem is that it based around distributing Linux under the General Public License (GPL)."

Regardless, McBride finished his press conference with saying that Red Hat and others have been playing "shell game going on with Linux legal liability."

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Red Hat thinks we should show them every line of infringing code so they can make changes and go forward, in complete ... with complete disregard for our business rights."

Could it be that SCO doesn't want Red Hat to fix the alleged infringement? I think this is very relevant, no?

[ Reply to This | # ]

McBride: Yes. We approached Red Hat [about licensing source code libraries] and they thought [our claim] was interesting. They said they'd talk about it, but then called back and said we'll pass [on licensing the source code from SCO]. [Red Hat Chairman and CEO Matthew] Szulik said copyright issues scare him. But Red Hat has had a free ride. In its IPO filings, one of the warnings to investors stated clearly that Red Hat may be violating IP and one day they may have to step up and pay royalties. Why not? Every time I ship a copy of my operating system, I pay royalties to Novell and Veritas. There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done. But we're focused on the IBM situation.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Err... so why is it that SCO is telling end users to cough up $699 in order to avoid being sued? That looks like 'enforcing its copyright on end users' to me. Moreover, a while back SCO said it didn't intend to sue vendors! See "SCO Reads the GPL and Backs Off!" in Groklaw. But then, we're getting very accustomed to SCO's inconsistency.

[ Reply to This | # ]

One version of SCO's claims http://www.linuxjournal. com/article.php?sid=6877

Although SCO's claims about Linux developers copying from SCO's proprietary UnixWare have been vague in the past, this time Sontag specifically claimed that there is "significant copyrighted and trade secret code within Linux".

When asked for examples of infringement, Sontag said, "It's all over the place" but did not characterize any one subsystem as containing more infringing code than others. Infringement is present not only in distributions and vendor kernels, but in the official kernel available from kernel.org. Code has been "munged around solely for the purpose of hiding the authorship or origin of the code", he said.

About removing the code htt p://asia.cnet.com/newstech/perspectives/0,39001148,39137449,00.htm

"I can see getting three, four, five, lines of code identical," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president of the Lindon, Utah-based company, pointing to a nearly full page of allegedly copied code. "If it was a few lines, I'd give it to you."

And it's not just the code. Programmer comments embedded in Linux--quick, English-language descriptions that aren't subject to mathematical or programming rules--are identical to those found in SCO's Unix code, according to SCO. There's even a typo in one of the commentaries in Unix System V that also appears in a Linux commentary, Sontag said.

Extracting the controversial code is not really a feasible solution. Because of the way intellectual property (IP) laws work, derivative products that use the allegedly pilfered code are also subject to liability. Anyone who bundles suspect products, or uses them, is also conceivably on the hook.

A different version of SCO's claims http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government /legalissues/story/0,10801,80925,00.html (a good read anyway for Sontag's take on IBM's response to SCO's complaint)

SCO reiterated the allegation again today. The company has accumulated more concrete evidence over the past two months indicating IBM funneled SCO Unix code to Linux, said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and general manager of SCO's SCOsource, a division in charge of managing and protecting the company's Unix intellectual property. "We're finding out things that we consider extremely troubling," he said.

In particular, SCO has evidence of SCO's System V Unix lines of code showing up on the Linux kernel that were either copied verbatim or mildly disguised, Sontag said. SCO also has evidence of a third instance of intellectual property violations: There is code in Linux's kernel that was developed "with obvious access to our source code," Sontag said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

RedHat: Page 9 of http://www.sco.co m/scosource/SCOsource_Presentation.pdf

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO insists that the introduction of user licences has been forced on it by IBM's and Red Hat's refusal to license its intellectual property and thereby indemnify their own Linux users.

"Both companies have shifted liability to the customer and then taunted us to sue them. So that's all they have left us to play with," said McBride.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO President Darl C. McBride says he'd consider replacement of the code, but warns it might not be practical: "When you find out how much code is infringing -- the amount is gargantuan -- it'd be a major challenge."

SCO isn't waiting around for the feds before it throws a new dart. Next month, SCO will tell companies that use or distribute Linux, such as Red Hat Inc., that they need to buy a license, says McBride.

[ Reply to This | # ]

MozillaQuest Magazine: In an interview Darl McBride did with CRN's Paula Rooney, that was published yesterday, he said "There will be a day of reckoning for Red Hat and SuSE when this is done." Just what did Darl mean by that? (Link to CRN article in the Resources section at the end of this article.)

Chris Sontag: What he meant was that if SCO prevails in their lawsuit with IBM, companies like Red Hat and SuSE may need to revisit their distributions and remove any UNIX system code from their distributions and compensate SCO in some way for the software code that they benefited from by using our UNIX code

MozillaQuest Magazine: Have Red Hat and/or SuSE done or are they doing something inappropriate?

Chris Sontag: SCO is coming across things all the time that these companies will need to address at some point. We haven't decided what course of action we plan to take yet.

MozillaQuest Magazine: Have they violated any SCO-Caldera copyrights, patents, and/ or trademarks?

Chris Sontag: That will be determined as SCO's case proceeds.

Chris Sontag: We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of our UNIX System V [SCO-owned Unix] source code and Red Hat as an example. We are coming across many instances where our proprietary software has simply been copied and pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our System V code in Red Hat. This is the kind of thing that we will need to address with many Linux distribution companies at some point.

From same article

Chris Sontag: We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel.

http://news.com.com/2100-101 6_3-1017267.html

Linux software companies could also become SCO targets. "Do we have potential issues with Red Hat, SuSE and other commercial Linux distributors--yes, we might," Sontag said, adding that chances for negotiating with such companies appear to be slim.

"Red Hat has been saying all along, 'We don't believe in licensing IP (intellectual property),'" he said.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Those remedial measures, however, seem to point toward some sort of royalty payment, as SCO does not believe that its intellectual property can be easily extracted from Linux. Not only are there lines of SCO's code in Linux, but also derivative products based on SCO intellectual property have been created, Sontag said. Getting all of the protected bits out, assuming SCO's claims are valid, would be a huge chore.

"Our biggest issues are with the derivative code," he said. "It would be almost impossible to separate it out."

[ Reply to This | # ]

http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

[ Reply to This | # ]

“SCO's words were that Linux distributors and others who are using Linux are 'distributing stolen goods,' ” said Claybrook of Aberdeen Group.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Buy out: http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81709 ,00.html Buy out: http://www.vnunet.com/News/1141847

RedHat: http://news.zdnet. co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2134178,00.html RedHat: http://www. mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story02.html RedHat: http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/breakingnews.asp?ArticleID=41480 RedHat: ht tp://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=123924&liArticleTyp eID=20&liCategoryID=1&liChannelID=126&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1 RedHat: http://ww w.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_27/b3840089.htm Red Hat: http://www.linuxworld.com/story /32677.htm

RedHat: http://216.239.51.104/search ?q=cache:QXYqnxD0sRsJ:www.ofb.biz/article.php%3Fsid%3D217+SCOsource+%22red+hat%2 2&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 "Rumors escaping the Lindon, Utah-based company as early as mid-January had suggested the company may be gearing up to sue one or more of its competing Linux distributors, such as Red Hat, in the near future"

Distributors: http://www.esj .com/enterprise/article.asp?EditorialsID=556 Distributors: http://rss.com.com/2100-1016_3-5047571.html?type=pt&part=rss&tag=feed&sub j=news Distributors: http://www.wired. com/news/business/0,1367,59701,00.html Distributors: http://www.newsfactor.com /perl/story/21421.html

Interesting Market research mentioning SCO: http://www.eweek.com/a rticle2/0,3959,922915,00.asp

Interesting Market research mentioing SCO and RedHat: http://wirel ess.ziffdavis.com/article2/0,3973,1164971,00.asp

[ Reply to This | # ]