|
More SCO Letters (Yawn) |
|
Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 09:20 AM EST
|
I must be suffering from SCO ennui, because tons of emails starting last night told me that SCO had sent more letters, but when I read the articles sent, it all looked like the same story as December's SCO letters story. I figured it was people coming back from a holiday and forgetting what they wrote. Or maybe a new SCO press release on the same old song.
Now, the letter is available at here [PDF]. [Update 2008: Groklaw has a local copy now as text.] It's to their UNIX Source Code licensees. It's dated the same general time period as the original letters, December 18, so they are either following the original plan, despite the fact that nobody seems to be taking them seriously at this point, or they got confused and sent the December 19 letter before sending the December 18 letter. Who knows with these people? I think Lee Gomes of the Wall Street Journal said it the clearest in his article on what the new year will bring in the tech field: As for Linux, when will the courts halt the lies of has-been software maker SCO (with $13 million in funding from Microsoft and Sun -- together at last!) as it tries to make the preposterous claim that it, and not the world, owns the free operating system? You need a sub to see this for yourself, and you can't link directly, but if you go here and type in Gomes, you can get it. You might remember Gomes from August's teleconference. He was the one, as in one and only, that asked some real questions and wrote a skeptical article thereafter, the first mainstream journalist I had seen up to that point that didn't swallow the SCO line hook, line, and sinker. There is another letter to Linux users [Update: Groklaw's local copy], listing the allegedly infringing files. The letter they sent to Linux users in December had the same list but also made reference to an attached list of Unix files, but the two people I've heard about that got that letter didn't get any such attachment. I'd like to hear from anyone getting that letter if they have any such list. This new letter makes no such reference. All very weird. All very SCO.
|
|
Authored by: kurt555gs on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:06 AM EST |
I wonder when we all get to see some proof of IP ownership that SCO is
claiming. I for one, and hopefully the press will eventually fall in to the
"Boy who cried wolf" syndrome.
Well, no matter the truth, I am sure this will send SCOX stock over
$18.00
Cheers PJ, No amount of praise for you is good enough
---
* Kurt *
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ruidh on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST |
But here's a new angle for discussion. IIRC, the judge in the USL/BSDi case
ruled that there were no valid copyrights in the Unix header files. Can
companies rely on that ruling? Will other courts hold it as binding on USL and
it's sucessors (i.e. SCO)
Or is it dicta or otherwise uncitable because it was in a preliminary ruling?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SkArcher on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:07 AM EST |
this
letter? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:08 AM EST |
guilty for sending one of the links
maybe i was delusional
hehehehe
when PJ wrote back and asked was there a PR release or someting i was confused
then she explained to me but i see i wasnt the only gullible person.i think
maybe i had been starved for sco news and so when all these stories popped up it
was like a lifeline
lol
sorry PJ
one of the links did have a Pdf that listed the filenames i believe?
i wonder how life will be when sco is over?
if just a few days make me this way what will a month of no sco news be like?
will i be able to go back to thinking normally again
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:11 AM EST |
back in may/june the SCOG press releases were stating something like, Millions
of customers worldwide.
now they have a total user base of 6000. so what do they do, they send them
letters saying to, suck-up or quit using our(SCOG) software.
maybe they could learn a few things about customer relations from sitting around
the fire singing a few lines of koom bye yah. after all that is where all their
customers went.
---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/cad-linux[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:12 AM EST |
Both letters are here: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ - bottom of the list on the
right hand side of the page, and these are the same letters refered to before
christmas. I think it is people back from hols catching up basically. The ABI
files letter lists the files and is - according to SCO - essentially the same as
the one it is sending to Linux users...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Tim Ransom on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:14 AM EST |
Yeah, this old news was unearthed again once their stock dipped below
$17.00.
Maybe they figure if they bore us enough, we'll go away.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Charles Holton on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:24 AM EST |
I just read the parts of the agreement excerpted in the
letter, but it looks to me like licensees are only required to
give a statement regarding the disposition of the software
they licensed from SCO, basically just what machines are
running it and that they haven't given away the code. Other
than that, this long list of demands looks like wishful
thinking on SCO's part. I hope at least one company
receiving this letter will publicly and loudly tell SCO where
to go, forcing SCO to terminate their license to save face,
at which point the company can sue SCO for breach of
contract. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:41 AM EST |
Seems the sole purpose of the letter is to make SCO's existing customer base to
perform a contractually obligated audit in the hope of confusing them into the
idea they can't run linux. The only thing I can see this doing is profoundly
upsetting their existing customers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: RealProgrammer on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:50 AM EST |
Slashdot ran a slow-reflex article on the "All your Linux are belong to us"
letter.
I'm working on a detailed commentary on the December 19th "65,
er, 9 files" letter. I'm taking each of the 9 groups of files and putting them
through a set of tests: do they resemble System V code, are the names from
POSIX, etc. Also, I've collected posts from the LKML and Groklaw and am quoting
where appropropriate.
The draft is here.
If you see anything there that ought to be improved, corrected, redacted, or
attributed to yourself or anyone else, let me know.
--- (I'm not a
lawyer, but I know right from wrong) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- December 19 SCO "65 files" letter - Authored by: kcassidy on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:07 AM EST
- December 19 SCO "65 files" letter - Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST
- December 19 SCO "65 files" letter - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST
- API vs ABI - Authored by: mscibing on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST
- December 19 SCO "65 files" letter - Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:46 PM EST
- Techical point. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:50 PM EST
- December 19 SCO "65 files" letter - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST
- December 19 SCO "65 files" letter - Authored by: mscibing on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:37 PM EST
- December 19 SCO "65 files" letter - Authored by: mscibing on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:58 PM EST
- December 19 SCO "65 files" letter - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 06:52 PM EST
- December 19 SCO "65 files" letter - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:02 PM EST
- DMCA analysis incorrect - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 01:30 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:55 AM EST |
Remember when SCO was trying to sell 'binary kernel licenses'? They seem to
have forgotten:
[You must certify that] You are not running Linux binary code that was compiled
from any version of linux that contains our copyrighted application binary code
("ABI Code") specifically identified in the attached notification
letter.
(Required Certification #1)
No mention of of "absent a binary kernel license from SCO", or
anything of the sort. I guess they really never intended to sell any.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kaip on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:08 AM EST |
18 December might be significant also for another reason:
I succesfully
downloaded the Linux kernel 2.4.13 source code,
distributed under the GNU
General Public License, from ftp.sco.com
on 7 December 2003. At some point
between 7 December 2003 and 2
January 2004 the kernel source code disappeared
from
ftp.sco.com. It seems likely that the removal took place on 18
December
2003 (the directory that contained the 2.4.13 kernel on
ftp.sco.com had a
modification date of 18 December).
The SCO letters referred to certain
files in the 2.4.21
kernel. Those files - at least those related to the
i386
architecture -
are identical in the 2.4.13 and 2.4.21 kernels, except for
one
trivial modification of a comment in one file
("Arg list" -> "Argument
list").
Thus, there are at least two options:
- SCO discovered the
allegedly infringing files
in or around 18 December. They then
removed the
kernel from
ftp.sco.com and sent the letters within days.
- SCO knew about
the files well before 18 December,
at the same time distributing them under the
GPL from
their FTP site.
(FWIW, I have kept a log of
my downloads of the
Linux kernel from ftp.sco.com,
including the details of the disappearance of
the
kernel.)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pbarritt on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:22 AM EST |
These letters went to SOURCE licensees. Certainly these
would include IBM,
HP, SUN, etc., but would also include
any number of now defunct startups
all of
the colleges and universities that used the code
for the comp sci OS courses.
How many of them still offer
a true UNIX OS course or use bits and pieces of
UNIX code
in other courses? I would be willing to bet that a large
number of
these licenses have been inactive for years.
The letter references an
AT&T/SCO license number and
then states:
"The undersigned SCO
Group, Inc.("SCO") is the successor licensor."
This would
also imply that these were contracts in perpetuity.
Are these also fully paid
up? Maybe this is just a high profile
way for SCO to clear out the clutter and
find out just what licenses
are still in effect. I know of at least one company
that was at
one time developing a SVR4 based OS for its unique hardware
circa
1993, but has long since been acquired and merged several times
over. I
suspect SCO will get a basket full of "license terminated
in year x by
destroying all copies of software product, copy of
notice to
AT&T/SCO/Caldera/SCOG attached".
This would be in accordance with
[Section]
6.02
"LICENSEE may terminate its rights under this Agreement
by written
notice to AT&T certifying that LICENSEE has discontinued
use of and
returned or destroyed all copies of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
subject to this
Agreement."
They may also get a few dated somewhere between 12/19/2003
and
1/19/2004.
--- just an idiot looking for a village... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:28 AM EST |
Until the letter to UNIX licensees gets to the part where they require
statements about Linux and the ABI, this looks like a standard audit, which was
enough to drive some of that other software company's customers to look to
Linux:
See stories here
and
here
T
he rest of the demands are hot air unsupported by the contract. e.g. "1 You are
not running Linux...." Linux is not mentioned in the contract.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:44 AM EST |
I think there is some confusion concerning who the letters were sent to. As
mentioned in PJ's second paragraph the first letter was sent to UNIX SOURCE
CODE licensees. Most of these companies licensed the source code from companies
that had the rights before SCO acquired them. They did not send this letter to
customers of their UNIXWARE products or other products.
I am curious if those licenses were arranged with a one time fee or if there are
annual payments for the source code license. My guess is that many of the 6000
companies have a license to use the UNIX source code but don't send a dime to
SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Unixware - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:34 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:47 AM EST |
1. Imagine you are running (and bought) SCO or Caldera Linux. According to
those letters, you are violating your UNIX license by doing so - there is no
exception for SCO/Caldera customers - in SCO's view, practically any use of
Linux (including materials you got from SCO/Caldera) is a
violation!!!!
(of course there is nothing in the Linux contract that
actually says that)
2. I wonder how SCO will explain those letters
on Jan 23. IBM are almost sure to bring it to the judge's attention, especially
if SCO is not forthcoming about its alleged rights in Linux, and when SCO fails
to meet its discovery obligations (I say when because in my opinion Kevin
McBride telegraphed that they wouldn't fully comply when asking questions near
the end of the hearing about whether both sides would have enough time to
brief).
3. Aside from harassing their customers, I have to wonder
whether they violate any (civil) laws:
Quoting a previous (deeply
buried) post:
It may not be a crime, but it seems like it might be one
or more of (1) Unfair
competition, (2) Lanham Act, (3) Tortorious interference,
(4) Interference with
prospective economic relations, (5) Trade libel, (6)
Sherman act violations, (7)
etc.
I would opine this, on the basis that
they are not merely seeking licensees not
to breach any legacy licensees
(customers), but are affirmatively seeking that
the licensees do not do ANY
business with Linux, do not use Linux, do not have
any staff working on Linux,
etc.
Imagine you are a Linux vendor seeking to sell Linux products and
services to
the same types of organizations as those who are recipients of those
letters.
The reasons for (1) to (5) are above are obvious.
Let's
imagine SCO's fantasy world is true for a second (obviously it's not),
they
really own/control all UNIX technology... (6) arises because they are
attempting
to leverage one monopoly (UNIX), to exclude working from competitors
(Linux),
and from buying competitors products (Linux). If you think Microsoft's
trust
violations were bad, this is worse. An MS equivalent to SCO's position,
would be
MS suing any customer organization who had ever had anything to do with
UNIX
anywhere in their organization, and demanding a pay off not to sue. The
fact
that SCO's little fantasy isn't going to happen - is irrelevant, the
intent, and
even the attempt is there (imagine a lousy criminal who trips on his
own shoe
laces when attempting a robbery, that's the analogy, the criminal
doesn't get
off for violating the law, just because he was incompetant).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:48 AM EST |
A little bit off topic, but if my 401k has SCO stock in it can I attend SCO
stockholder's meeting?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 401k - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:58 PM EST
|
Authored by: kberrien on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:39 PM EST |
I noticed the form letter on SCO doesn't have any
US Certified Mail Number: _______________________
At the bottom. Were the letters just sent 1st class, standard?
If so, couldn't recipient just toss the thing. This action is being taken as a
right in the contract.. but you couldn't enforce anything if you can't prove
you went through the proper steps.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:40 PM EST |
SCO, their lawyers and some publishers like to describe copyright as
``intellectual property''---a term that also includes patents, trademarks, and
other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ
so much, that SCO and their legal found the term "intellectual
property" as a tool of obfuscation. "We claim we can sue you over
something, but we won't say what it is."
``Intellectual property'' is a catch-all that lumps together several disparate
legal systems, including copyright, patents, trademarks, and others, which have
very little in common. These systems of law originated separately, cover
different activities, operate in different ways, and raise different public
policy issues. If you learn a fact about copyright law, you would do well to
assume it does not apply to patent law, since that is almost always so.
Since these laws are so different, the term ``intellectual property'' is an
invitation to simplistic thinking. It leads people to focus on the meager common
aspect of these disparate laws, which is that they establish monopolies that can
be bought and sold, and ignore their substance--the different restrictions they
place on the public and the different consequences that result. At that broad
level, you can't even see the specific public policy issues raised by copyright
law, or the different issues raised by patent law, or any of the others. Thus,
any opinion about ``intellectual property'' is almost surely foolish.
If you want to think clearly about the issues raised by patents, copyrights and
trademarks, or even learn what these laws require, the first step is to forget
that you ever heard the term ``intellectual property'' and treat them as
unrelated subjects. To give clear information and encourage clear thinking,
never speak or write about ``intellectual property''; instead, present the
topic as copyright, patents, or whichever specific law you are discussing.
According to Professor Mark Lemley of the University of Texas Law School, the
widespread use of term "intellectual property" is a recent fad,
arising from the 1967 founding of the World Intellectual Property Organization.
(See footnote 123 in his March 1997 book review, in the Texas Law Review, of
Romantic Authorship and the Rhetoric of Property by James Boyle.) WIPO
represents the interests of the holders of copyrights, patents and trademarks,
and lobbies governments to increase their power. One WIPO treaty follows the
lines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which has been used to censor
useful free software packages in the US. See http://www.wipout.net/ for a
counter-WIPO campaign.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tcranbrook on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:12 PM EST |
Here is another article from the tech press.
" Anthony Awtrey,
vice president of I.D.E.A.L. Technology, a Linux solution provider in Orlando,
Fla., said SCO's actions continue to highlight the value proposition of Linux
technology. "We love Linux, and we won't pay SCO a dime," he said. "Please come
after us. It would be a wonderful way not only for us to promote our business,
but how the hell can [SCO] make the statements [about technology ownership] when
they [haven't produced] the files that are in dispute in court?""
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DH on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:26 PM EST |
tSCOg issued a press release at Monday December 22, 8:02 am ET: http://biz.yahoo.com/prn
ews/031222/lam046_1.html
"The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the
owner of the UNIX® operating system and a leading provider of UNIX based
solutions, today announced new initiatives to enforce and protect the company's
intellectual property rights. These initiatives include two
components:
* Under the terms of SCO's System V UNIX
contracts, the company has
commenced issuing written notice to thousands
of licensees requiring
each licensee to provide written certification
that it is in full
compliance with their UNIX source code agreement,
including
certification that such licensee is not using proprietary UNIX
code in
Linux, has not allowed unauthorized use of the licensed UNIX
code by
its employees or contractors, and has not breached
confidentiality
provisions relating to the licensed UNIX
code."
This is the "Unix Licensee Letter", send
to some (3000? see conference call) oft tSCOg's 6000 ex AT&T UNIX Licensees
found at SCO source:
http://sco.com/scosource/unix_licensee_letter_20031218.pdf
soon to be
discussed in
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040106112439165
"* SCO has also begun providing notice of Digital Millennium Copyright
Act (DMCA) violations via letters sent to select Fortune 1000 Linux
end
users. The letters outline additional evidence of copyright
infringement in Linux and the legal options available to commercial
end
users regarding the continued use of Linux."
This is the
"ABI Files Letter"
http://www.sco.com/scosource/abi_files_letter_20031219.pdf, already
discussed in
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031222161942627
In the same
press release tSCOg says:
"DMCA Notification Letter
SCO has commenced
providing notification to selected Fortune 1000 Linux end users outlining
additional violations of SCO's copyrights contained in Linux. Certain
copyrighted application binary interfaces have been copied verbatim from the
UNIX System V code base and contributed to Linux without proper authorization
and without copyright attribution."
To reduce confusion, I recommend to
call the first letter AT&T Unix Licensee Letter and the
second DMCA ABI Files Letter.
The Computerweekly on Monday
5 January 2004 released an article titled
"SCO sends notices to 6,000 Linux
licensees", but there is no "Linux licensee Letter" (to my knowledge), so this
maybe the writer's error (he's two weeks late anyway). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 09:21 PM EST |
Anyone notice that when the December 19th letter mentions the USL vs BSDI
settlement it refers to BSDI as Berkeley Systems Development Inc. rather than
it's correct name Berkeley Software Design? Do you think an IBM lawyer would
make this mistake?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|