|
|
| SCO's December 19 Letter to UNIX Licensees - as Text |
 |
|
Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:24 AM EST
|
As you will see, SCO has probably guaranteed the death of UNIX by this loathesome letter, if not the death of proprietary software, period. Could there be a clearer contrast between proprietary and GNU/Linux? Anyone receiving such a "Put Your Hands Up --This is a Stickup" letter is probably, after a few swear words, looking into switching to Linux as I write. SCO is claiming rights to all derivative works, as per their definition, and say that not only the code but methods and concepts are required, they claim, to be kept a secret. You can't share nuttin' wid nobody or they "may" pursue their legal remedies. Like sue ya. SCO v. the entire UNIX world. Their problem is, as you can see in this text of the letter, their whole house of cards depends on ABIs being copyrighted. I believe that they may find that claim very hard to sustain. And that brings up the matter that their claim has not been established in any court of law that I have heard about. There are other issues as well, such as: can you add what appear to be new requirements to an old contract? Here is the letter. Let me know of any typos, etc., as I was working very fast.
**********************************************************
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 copyrighted application binary interface code ("ABI Code") specifically identified in the attached notification letter.
2. You, your contractors and your employees have, to your knowledge, held at all times all parts of the Software Products (including methods and concepts) in confidence for SCO.
3. You have appropriately notified each employee and contractor to whom you have disclosed the Software Products, and taken steps to assure that such disclosure was made in confidence and must be kept in confidence by such employee or contractor. Please provide evidence of your compliance with this obligation. This evidence may include, but not be limited to, nondisclosure agreements, employee policies or manuals, or other such evidence of compliance.
4. Neither you nor your contractors or employees with access to the Software Products have contributed any software code based on the Software Product for use in Linux or any other UNIX-based software product.
5. Neither you nor your contractors or employees have used any part of the Software Products directly for others, or allowed any use of the Software Products by others, including but not limited to use in Linux or any other UNIX-based software product.
6. Neither you nor your contractors or employees have made available for export, directly or indirectly, any part of the Software Products covered by this Agreement to any country that is currently prohibited from receiving supercomputing technology, including Syria, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, and any other such country, through a distribution under the General Public License for Linux, or otherwise.
7. Neither you nor your contractors or employees have transferred or disposed of, through contributions to Linux or otherwise, any part of the Software Product.
8. Neither you nor your contractors or employees have assigned or purported to assign any copyright in the Software Products to the General Public License, or otherwise, for use in Linux or another UNIX-based software product.
SCO will not allow UNIX Licensees to make any improper use of the Software Products, including the use of the Software Products to assist development of Linux. If you fail to make, or are unable to make, a full and complete certification as required above within 30 days of receipt hereof, SCO may pursue all legal remedies available to it, including, but not limited to, license termination rights.
Yours truly,
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
By: _____________________
Bill Broderick
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:53 AM EST |
| PJ, in para 8 you have 'Linus' instead of 'Linux' [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: OK on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:54 AM EST |
...did I receive such a letter at my old place of work? I was, after all,
registered as a developer for their OpenServer, and my name should be in the SCO
database as one of their licensees. Of course, it was years ago, and half-world
away, but nevertheless...
I am also wondering how are they going to enforce the compliance with their
requests...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:54 AM EST |
The only thing I can think of is that they're trying to establish that they're
absolutely paranoid about divulging any "proprietary info". Perhaps
they're thinking that this will prove they they never would have released
anything publicly or under the GPL. Hope the judge nails 'em.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kalimar on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST |
I keep reading these articles and letters from SCO and I keep coming back to the
same question:
How can they legally make these claims of ownership/copyright when ownership is
in dispute?
What would you do if you got one of these letters? Double check to see if you
are running anything that 'infringes' and prepare to remedy it in the event
that SCO wins? Or just ignore it?
I used to be amused at the antics of SCO, but I'm starting to feel bad for them
because they don't seem to get it. I understand that from their point of view
they are getting all their ducks in a row for when they win (according to their
world view), but aren't they opening themselves up for numerous countersuits
when they lose?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: resst on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST |
How long before the picked-on kids in the park gang up on the playground bully
and teach him a lesson he'll not soon forget?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elrond_2003 on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:00 PM EST |
It sounds like it is preparing part of the response to IBM's interrogatory.
List everyone with access to UNIX and what was done to keep UNIX confidential.
Since no replies will be in before 11 Jan they can certify that they tried but
those pesky licencees did not comply.
A question for the lawyers;
Will this after the fact inquiry be sufficient to protect SCO from the
consequences of one of the licencees releasing (inadvertantly or otherwise) UNIX
code to the public domain?
---
free as in speech. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crythias on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST |
| I didn't know Linux was a UNIX-based product... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:02 PM EST |
since novell is entitled to 95% of the license fees per the contracts with sco
would this not mean a threat to novells income?
will we be seeing another lawsuit started against sco?
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:05 PM EST
- novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 04:28 AM EST
- novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:25 PM EST
- novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST
- novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST
- novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:34 PM EST
- novell? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:03 PM EST
- novell? - Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:15 PM EST
- novell? - Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:13 PM EST
- wasn't it old customers only? - Authored by: xtifr on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 06:24 PM EST
- Time to start the Novell v. SCO pool? - Authored by: darthaggie on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 08:28 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: danb35 on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:03 PM EST |
What strikes me as odd is that this letter quotes the paragraph of the license
agreement providing for the certification, which states exactly what the
licensee must certify upon request, and then proceeds to demand information that
is not, by the terms of the quoted provision, required. That SCO is
overstepping its authority is no surprise at all, but the fact that they're
doing it so obviously... well... also isn't a surprise, but shows their
continuing incompetence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maco on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:04 PM EST |
My favorite part:
That SCO *supercomputing* technology was not exported. I pray to god this has
not happened, or the Cubans will leapfrog over us!
My favorite implied part:
Thay they in no way could respond themselves - Caldera and SCO employees
contributing to Linux, etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:05 PM EST |
I think it's an attempt to open an avenue of litigation without resorting to a
copyright claim. If they yank a license for compliance failure, they appear to
threaten legal action if the licensee doesn't immediately stop using their
product (which virtually no one could do if their business depends upon this OS
and software developed for it).
While they are certain to upset a number of clients, there will be many who
simply won't be able to comply in the 30 day timeframe due to the breadth of
information SCO is demanding.
Then there's the issue of whether SCO can terminate a license legally if a
company doesn't certify the points, rather just provides a list of machines and
locations, which is ALL the original contract says SCO is entitled to ask for,
and only once a year.
It would appear to me that any of their licensees whom are switching to Linux
basically would have to make a decision, either stop using Linux, pay the
license fees to keep using Linux, keep using Linux but don't pay the fee and
don't tell SCO, or stop using UNIX entirely and switch over to Linux. The 30
day timeframe I'm sure is designed to circumvent virtually anyone's conversion
schedule and force the issue.
SCO either gets Linux fees, gets a customer to abandon Linux conversion plans,
or potentially gets to sue the customer over a contract violation. And they can
sue for a contract violation, no matter what Novell is doing about the
copyrights. It may be the only avenue SCO has in the near future until they are
done litigating against Novell over rights owenership.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
IANAL, etc...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST |
Instead of typing the stuff in, there are a couple of
utilities that might help you:
pdf2ps converts pdf to post script.
ps2ascii converts post script to text.
They might be useful for you - give them a try if you get
the chance.
Great site by the way. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: burySCO on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:08 PM EST |
Can someone clarify is this letter going out to a) SCO product customers, b)
Other *nix customers (eg. Solaris, HP-UX) c) Linux users, d) *BSD users, or
maybe all of the above?
I imagine if their own customers get such a letter they'd switch O/S's.
If it's being sent to others, then I'd expect more lawsuits against SCO. (This
-is- extortion. They're threatening legal action against companies who do not
divulge detailed non-public information regarding their IT strategies to SCO)
---
My jabber handle is burySCO@jabber.org[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stutchbury on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:09 PM EST |
I'm dumbfounded. Is this is not the most obvious clue that SCO have given up
the software business - threatening their own customers? They must have read the
book 'How to make friends and influence people in one easy lesson'. (or more
appropriately: 'How to crash and burn your business in several painful
lessons').
Stunning. Absolutely stunning. It amazes me how individuals can twist their
moral perception in pursuit of greed - the root of all evil. This is not (nor
even has been) a moral crusade.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:15 PM EST |
So the question is
what is Sun's and MS's response as they are both Licensees?
I would imagine that Bill Gates is seeing Red right about now..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- MS and SUN? - Authored by: BsAtHome on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:28 PM EST
- MS and SUN? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST
- MS and SUN? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:11 PM EST
- MS and SUN? - Authored by: piskozub on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:15 PM EST
- MS and SUN? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 04:20 AM EST
- How about Oracle? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 05:27 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: RealProgrammer on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:17 PM EST |
A few things come to mind:
1) They don't like the GPL because it "forces you" to GPL your
changes. Contrast their [SCO owns all changes] stance to the GPL. The GPL says
[you own the changes] but you can only publish the entire derived work under the
GPL (or keep it for yourself). If your changes are enough to stand alone by
themselves, you can publish them under any license you choose (but not with the
original).
2) SCO is getting desperate. They've got less than a week to come up evidence
against IBM, and so far they've got nothing (because there is nothing).
3) If I were a UNIX licensee, I would tell them to take a long walk out a short
airlock.
4) What does "restraint of trade" mean?
---
(I'm not a lawyer, but I know right from wrong)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GPL is viral? - Authored by: jam on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:43 PM EST
- GPL is viral? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 04:18 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:18 PM EST |
1. You are not running Linux binary code that was compiled from any version
of Linux that contains our copyrighted application binary interface code ("ABI
Code") specifically identified in the attached notification
letter.
What if you are, and you are running as a result of
purchasing a copy of SCO/Caldera Linux from SCO/Caldera?
Will they give
your money back?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: BsAtHome on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:22 PM EST |
...(b) modifications to, or derivative works based on, any
UNIX product made by you.
They wrote this nicely using the
UNIX word and then later bind it to Linux. We all know that GNU/Linux
means GNU is Not Unix/Linux. However, SCO does not say anything about
this fact and leaves it to the reader to interpret. You could call this a
stretch of the truth, but that is what we are used to by
now.
1. You are not running Linux binary code that was
compiled from any version of Linux that contains our copyrighted application
binary interface code ("ABI Code") specifically identified in the attached
notification letter.
Here they are not saying that linux
contains their code, but they assert that you are not running a version of linux
that [you made] is using some SVR ABI. A clever
disguise.
4. Neither you nor your contractors or employees
with access to the Software Products have contributed any software code based on
the Software Product for use in Linux or any other UNIX-based software
product.
This is a fishing expedition saying: Please licensee,
incriminate yourself, please, won't you. They mention linux, but they also say,
all other unices, to make it appear more broad.
---
SCOop of the day,
Groklaw Rulez [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Rollmops on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:24 PM EST |
Another thinly veiled message these letters convey is that in SCO's view,
running SCO binaries on top of non-SCO operating systems is illegal. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Adam on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST |
It's clear what they're trying to do--halt development of Linux by spreading
FUD. The problem is, by making unreasonable requests they are forcing the
recipients to pierce the FUD. Even the most clueless manager on the planet, the
kind who would love nothing more than to have an excuse to send out a memo
demanding cessation of all Linux activity, is going to find that he cannot
comply with these requests. I am pretty sure that most companies will be
completely unable to provide this information. So our hypothetical clueless
manager is going to have to find some alternative to compliance, he's going to
be forced to ask his lawyers and his IT people for a way out. And they will
educate him as to the absurdity of SCO's position.
SCO are forcing the very people whose natural instinct would be to support them
to turn against them. I have to wonder if some people at SCO haven't let their
self-loathing get the better of them and aren't intentionally undermining their
position.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:35 PM EST |
Self explanary title :
- do they send this letter to themselves ?
- how would they answer to their own questions ?
FFF[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: photocrimes on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST |
>>>
1. You are not running Linux binary code that was compiled from any version of
Linux that contains our copyrighted application binary interface code
("ABI Code") specifically identified in the attached notification
letter.
<<<
How do you reply to this seeing as it is based on unfounded claims? I could say,
"Sure, but first you must prove in writing that you(SCO) are not using any
of my copyrighted kernel code in your business" then I could include a
bunch of header files I don't own and Linus could send me a letter telling me
about when he wrote them. (Or I could send them the code I do in fact own the
copyrights to).
It's seems to me all that the SCO licensees need to offer, as stated in the
"original" license, is a list of CPU's/Systems running a version of
Unixware or OpenServer. They are not bound to identify any other product that is
not covered by SCO's license(i.e. Windows, Netware, Linux, FreeBSD, etc...).
So the simple solution would be to have their legal team draft a reply letter
that simply states "We have X copies of SCO whatever running on X numbers
of CPU's and have complied with our original license agreement with SCO, thank
you and have a nice day"
Am I missing something here?
---
//A picture is worth a thousand words//[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:51 PM EST |
| As you will see, SCO has probably guaranteed the death
of UNIX by this
loathesome letter, if not the death of
proprietary software, period.
Well, proprietary Unix - seems so. Proprietary software as
such -
not
likely. In the long run probably the demise of
proprietary
*generic*
software, like OS's, word processing etc. But I'm
confident that other
commercial applications will be alive
and well for ages to come.
Thanks
to Paula for keeping everyone up to date!
Henrik R Clausen, Copenhagen,
Denmark [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:55 PM EST |
| All together, now . . . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:00 PM EST |
| If you fail to make, or are unable to make, a full and complete
certification as required above within 30 days of receipt hereof, SCO may pursue
all legal remedies available to it, including, but not limited to, license
termination rights
and they sent this, unprovoked, to each and every
one of their UNIX source customers? Is this the kind of thing you'd find
acceptable from anybody that you bought something from? A threatening legal
letter demanding that you "certify compliance" within 30 days or suffer "all
legal remedies"?
If I was one of their customers and got this, I know what
I'd do. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lnx4me on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:01 PM EST |
I found a copy of this from
7/1/03, don't know if it was posted on Groklaw but some might find it an
interesting perspective on OSS, the GPL, and market share as we await the next
court date.
Bob[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT: Another view of OSS, GPL, and the market place - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:57 PM EST
- OT: Another view of OSS, GPL, and the market place - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:17 PM EST
- OT: Another view of OSS, GPL, and the market place - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:25 PM EST
- OT: Another view of OSS, GPL, and the market place - Authored by: iceworm on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:54 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:12 PM EST |
Aren't we a little overdue for lawsuits from Linus, Alan, RMS, FSF, &c
against SCO for willful copyright infringement?
I would think that any judge would uphold an injunction for this against SCO.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sjohnson on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:18 PM EST |
| The SCOX letter to the 6000 Source Licensees had been nagging at me. I couldn't
figure it out until this morning.
From the Novell Asset Purchase Agreement,
section 4.16 SVRX Licenses:
(b) Buyer shall not, and shall
not have the authority to, amend, modify
or waive any right
under or assign any SVRX License without the prior
written consent of Seller.
...
The SCO Group can't exercise any right under the
SVRX Licenses; unless, they get prior written permission from Novell. Those
rights include the code audits that SCO is attempting to perform. I really doubt
Novell gave The SCO Group permission to permission. So that probably means that
the 6000 SVRX Licensees can just ignore the letter.
Or am I missing
something from the APA amendments? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:20 PM EST |
Could this be a typo? "solely for Licensee's own internal business
purposes and solely for Licensee's own internal business purposes"
In my visual effects business, there are many companies that have UNIX source
licenses that are running Linux. I can't imagine how they'll respond to this
letter. Perhaps they will, as another person responded above, send back a
boilerplate letter saying that they are using the product as licensed and just
not answer the question about using Linux with the SCO ABI code.
Fortunately, I'm not in that position, we never could afford a Unix source
license.
thad[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: T. ProphetLactus on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:21 PM EST |
| 1. You are not running Linux binary code that was compiled from any version
of Linux that contains our copyrighted application binary interface code ("ABI
Code") specifically identified in the attached notification letter.
As
the issue of the ABI copyright "ownership" by SCOG and whether or not it has
been 'copied' into Linux has not been legally established and is subject to
controversy, I think a truthful answer can be "Oh yes, we are definately not
running any Linux binary code that was compiled from any version of Linux that
has been *proven* to contain your copyrighted application binary interface
code." ...no matter WHAT distro/kernel they are using. Terminating a legally
purchased license or contract based on what they *think or suspect* is asking
for even more trouble in court, I would guess.
This should spur a greater
urgency (in those few remaining customers they have left) to hasten any
remaining SCOG products towards the dungheap of history.
TPL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:26 PM EST |
As you will see, SCO has probably guaranteed the death of UNIX by
this loathesome letter, if not the death of proprietary software,
period.
Destroying UNIX industry is probably the whole intent of
this lawsuit. SCO is dying anyway. It has nothing to lose if UNIX and Linux
are gone with it.
Guess who is going to benifit from that.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stutchbury on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:31 PM EST |
Are there any lawyers in the Groklaw community who could draft a pro-forma
response to this nonsense?
Perhaps, PJ, we could have a section on the site which published a set of
standard responses to all past and future SCO spam ^H^H^H^H letters (AS IS, WITH
ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY of course:)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:32 PM EST |
Novell has already done so. They stated that SCO could not revoke IBM's AIX
license without Novell's approval which they have publicly stated were not
giving, hence IBM still has rights to distribute AIX, according to Novell.
--Shaun[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:35 PM EST |
Maybe I'm stupid, but you - the licensee - ARE allowed to create derivative
works. Right? Says so right in the letter.
So, if you grant SCO all of their assumptions as being facts, then those 6K
people are the only ones who can legally run the derivative work known as
Linux... Right?
So the only people who should be upset about this letter are those who haven't
received it...
-----Burton[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:37 PM EST |
Can not Novell simply waive any purported violation or termination that SCO is
sending under section 4.16 of the APA
1. If there is no violation - the letter has no effect (it can not terminate)
2. If there is a violation - Novell can instruct SCO to waive, and SCO waives,
Novell can waive itself.
My bet is Novell have already done item 2
SCO have not disclosed this (just like they didn't for the IBM termination)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pbarritt on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:39 PM EST |
3. You have appropriately notified each employee and
contractor to whom you
have disclosed the Software Products, and taken steps to
assure that such
disclosure was made in confidence and must be kept in
confidence by such
employee or contractor. Please provide evidence of your
compliance with this
obligation. This evidence may include, but not be limited
to,
nondisclosure agreements
[emphasis added]
, employee policies or
manuals, or other such evidence of
compliance.
Aside from the
questionable Linux aspects of the letter,
there is
one thing in this paragraph
that may be relevant. The names
on the non-disclosure agreements. In another
post I said that
I believe that a lot of these 6,000 source licenses were
to
colleges and universities and were used to teach OS theory
courses. I would
expect that professors were required to get
non-disclosure agreeements from
their students if the source
code was used in the course. Now, if those
agreements still
exist and are presented to SCO as evidence of compliance,
what
happens if some of the Linux kernel developers show up on
one of those
lists? Or if the name of an IBM employee that
did kernel submissions appears on
an agreement from a university
or a previous employer?
But, then again,
I guess if you ever signed one of these
then SCO owns all of the code you've
written since, and
in their mind, ever. Or if you have used SCO UNIX or if
you
have seen a SCO UNIX CD, or if you have actually used
the word SCO in a
sentence, or ...
---
just an idiot looking for a village... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: duratkin on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 01:44 PM EST |
Oh, and by the way, don't forget to include all those PDAs, Cell phones, test
equipment, and ... CPUs that are running Linux in your report to SCO! Might
want to license those as well. Let's see, $669 * 9,876,543,210 = ..... Oh
Boy! I think I'll go out and buy some SCO stock!!
Wake me up when it happens!
---
All good penquins love free stuff.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: MRMoskau on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:01 PM EST |
I swear to God, it looks like they don't actually want anyone to use Unix, let
alone Linux.
Paraphrasing wildly:
Only authorized people can
use it
Only certain individuals are authorized to use it
None of those
individuals is allowed to be an employee/contractor/benefactor of your
particular company
It's almost as though they are saying "You can buy
a license, and then we can send you people who will use, manage and administer
the software for you." From the looks of the restrictions, I think a KFC
customer would be allowed to use their OS, and not a KFC employee.
Jeesh!
[Pardon the unrestrained, uninformed humour I've displayed in
this reply...][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SkArcher on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:01 PM EST |
E-Week
MS own
webiste
The campaign is entitled 'Get the Facts'. Anyone want to
start a response campaign called 'Here are the facts'?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:01 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: ebresie on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:09 PM EST |
| So does this basically mean that SCO want's every licensee to check their code
and see if they have any SCO code?
I guess I could see how SCO might have
the same problems with their licensee's that IBM is having with SCO...not being
allowed to see the other parties proprietary code to verify what is and isn't
SCO or the licensee's property and as such, SCO feels it is up to the licensee
to ensure everything is legit. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grantma on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:09 PM EST |
More of a comment than anything else, but I believe that this is important. I
have used linux since the first SLS linux release in late 1992?
I have reviwed almost all the email on the Linux Kernel Mailing list about this
topic a day ago. Linus changed the early kernel to fit the libc that H J Lu
ported to linux, and rewrote the error numbers in the kernel headers so that the
library source would not lose its portability. This library was created on *BSD
(and probably SysV) as a stand alone libc from the provided system libc, and
where the enumeration of the error numbers in errno.h comes from is the array of
error messages in the libc code that H J Lu ported to the germ linux system. I
believe he may have got that code from GNU as the code from linux libc 4 was
merged in to create glibc 2.0 (aka linux libc 5)
The point here is that there was no source copied, only the enumeration(s) via a
reverse engineering process.
You only have to point at the Caldera (now SCO Group) vs MS case over
Caldera/DR/Novell DOS to find a juxtapostion of their current ABI argmuent! The
current linux reverse engineering stuff was not objected to in the case, yet
Caldera's claims that MS broke the ABI to stop Windows running on
Caldera/DR/Novell DOS were upheld.
This is probabaly worth its own story. The timeline of the BSD case and where
the main creation of the Linux header files fits in would be interesting.
I was using the first Linux SLS distribution at about the end of 1992 when it
was percieved you needed a USL source license to develop on the original BSD
kernel code, before the USL trial. The header file stuff predates the trial,
and maybe the initial BSD 4.4 release that the trial disputed. Linus steered
clear of that BSD code base (and SysV) for kernel related stuff because of the
legal issues, though the user space code in the Net2 BSD was used for telnet and
telnetd etc.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:16 PM EST |
"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."
So no service bureau either.
No
support for auditing... since that is run for the
auditors.
"Para. 7.06(a) [7.05(a). Licensee agrees ... it
shall not make any disclosure of any or all of the Software Products (including
methods or concepts utilized therein) to anyone,... 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.
..."
And can no longer work for anyone other than any licenced
organization, or SCOx....
And there is no time limit on this restriction
either.
The last one of these I signed had a 3 year limit on the
restriction.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: salimf on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:16 PM EST |
Does anybody fancy helping me make a parody of this site:
Get The Facts
Calling
all groklaw researchers: Can you help me find research documents (preferably by
the big-name companies) that tell precisely the opposite story? For bonus
points, in addition to a URL can you provide a 1 paragraph summary of the report
in the same style as Microsoft's silly blurb? ---
---
Sal [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crythias on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:23 PM EST |
(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend,
modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior
written consent of Seller. ...
The grammar is:
Buyer shall
not ammend, modify, or waive any right ...
AND
Buyer shall not have the
authority to ammend, modify, or waive any right ...
The comma after "to" is
grammatically correct to separate another clause "shall not have the authority
to." The text needs to be read as if the clause, separated by commas, did not
exist in the original text, and then replace the first clause with the
comma-separated clause. Also, the "to" before the comma must apply only to the
comma-separated clause, and not the first clause, because it wouldn't make sense
to say: Buyer shall not to
Respectfully, I
believe stronger language such as "buyer has no rights" (heh) would be included,
if your suggestion was intended.
I'm wanting to believe you![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Frihet on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:36 PM EST |
Wait a minute. The audit section:
"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."
just says a licensee has to count their SCO machines and say they have not
misused SCO's precious IP. Where does the license say the licensee has to
answer a list of questions created AFTER the agreement was signed???
---
Frihet
Write your congress folks![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:40 PM EST |
This just adds to the nonsense.
Until they settle the copyright issue with Novell I cant see how any IT manager
would want to answer this letter, especially as it pertains to Linux.
"Our company's Linux activities are outside the scope of our License
agreement and are no concern of yours!"
springs to mind.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dwheeler on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:52 PM EST |
| IANAL, but I think the recipients of the letter should only reply with the
information specifically required by the license they've signed... and nothing
else. Licensees would be foolish to actually respond to any of these additional
requests for information from SCO. Time is precious; if there's no requirement
to spend the time to gain this information, why work as SCO's unpaid employee?
Also, even if they believe they're clear legally, actually answering any such
questions would open the licensees to further litigation by SCO. A minor
mistake that HQ was unaware of could be turned by SCO into a big and expensive
court case, all of which can be avoided by not answering questions SCO has
little right to demand.
Is there a right to demand additional proof (beyond
what's in a contract) to show that a contract is actually being obeyed? Does
anyone know of law or cases which give licensors additional rights beyond what's
in a contract?
I suspect that any such rights are quite limited.
Anyone can
write a letter and request information, and there's nothing wrong with that.
However, I suspect there's no requirement to respond, either, unless a contract
requires such information. As far as I can tell, the contract only requires that
the licensees give a list of users and CPUs... so give them that list! SCO has
no right to unilaterally amend a contract to obtain information.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:02 PM EST |
I interviewed Mr Blake Stowell on 13 June 2003. I recall him specifically
mentioning that Linus' university had a Unix Source license. Helsinki, if I
recall correctly... I recall him speaking to this very issue - that Linus had
been tainted by his University's Unix source license.
Trevor G Marshall
Contributing Editor, BYTE.com (BYTE is not associated with this post)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- When I interviewed Mr Stowell he mentioned Linus - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:06 PM EST
- When I interviewed Mr Stowell he mentioned Linus - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:07 PM EST
- Tainted - Authored by: pfusco on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:17 PM EST
- Interesting, but only if Linus saw the code and agreed to an NDA - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:24 PM EST
- Yeah! Trade secrets are taught in university classrooms. - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:06 PM EST
- When I interviewed Mr Stowell he mentioned Linus - Authored by: Ruidh on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:01 PM EST
- Source code with installs? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:17 PM EST
- Source Code of Unix - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:31 PM EST
- It doesn't matter -- Novell's copyrights neutralize SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 06:48 PM EST
- When I interviewed Mr Stowell he mentioned Linus - Authored by: Stephen on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:45 PM EST
- When I interviewed Mr Stowell he mentioned Linus - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 07:09 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Jim Bengtson on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:14 PM EST |
I wonder...does this amount to a modification of the license? According to the
Novell/Santa Cruz Operation purchase contract, the buyer (now SCO) may not
change the license without Novell's approval:
"4.16 SVRX Licenses
(b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive
any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of
Seller."
If this -is- an illegal attempt to modify the license,
Novell has the power to nullify it. But does this allow the possiblility of
Novell's nullifying the entire purchase, meaning that ownership of UNIX reverts
to Novell?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:16 PM EST |
This letter is probably partly motivated by the now compelling need to answer
IBMs interrogatories. IBM is clearly looking to see if SCOX knows where it's
IP has been. SCOX clearly hasn't a clue. Darl just couldn't resist using the
opportunity to spread FUD in the process. I expect that this little exercise
will be used as part of an excuse for more time to respond. Dear Judge, we
can't be absolutely certain it was IBM until ALL 6,000 customers respond.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:51 PM EST |
| Really insightful comment at Slashdot today... explains a lot about the wild
comments coming out of SCO...
http://ask.
slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=91750&cid=7894278
'' This is not
strictly speaking a pump and dump. I call what SCO is doing "pump and squeeze".
SCO is very thinly traded. That means most shares of SCOX are held by insiders
and institutional funds. Only a small amount of stock is being sold on the open
market. Small buys and sells of the stock move its price wildly. This means SCO
can't just dump their shares on the market and make a killing. The price would
drop too rapidly for them to move it all at a good price. What insiders can do
is register planned sales of stock with the SEC and time their press releases to
shortly proceed those sales. This allows them move chunks of stock at the high
rate. Anytime the price dips too low for public consumption or a planned sale,
they can make another outrageous announcement and pump it back up. The longer
they have to unload their stock, the better this works. This is why they do
everything humanly possible to delay the IBM and RedHat suits. Either one of
those coming to a quick finish would destroy the pump before it finishes
extracting money from the market.
They can also use the paper value of the
stock as collateral to buy things. This seemed to work best by their buying
Vultus (another Canopy Group company). In this way, they can allow the Canopy
Group to show real profits with real money even though its really the Canopy
Group shuffling things around. It would be risky for them to acquire outside
companies this way since it would expose their scheme to more parties who either
want their cut or sue them as well.''
Now I get it! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Short sellers, too - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:52 PM EST
- Pump and Squeeze - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 08:27 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: jwoolley on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:52 PM EST |
Here's something that caught my eye. They said:
8. Neither
you nor your contractors or employees have assigned or purported to assign any
copyright in the Software Products to the General Public License, or otherwise,
for use in Linux or another UNIX-based software product.
Is it
just me or does this entire part seem misguided? No one assigns copyright TO
the GPL. The GPL is not an entity to which copyright can be assigned. If we
try to give them the benefit of the doubt and "fix" this part to say something
meaningful, it would seem to have to say one of two things:
- You
have not assigned copyright to the Free Software Foundation or any other entity;
or
- You have not released any of the copyrighted material under the General
Public License.
Which are they asking? Presumably the latter, but
that's not what it actually says. Or am I missing something
important?
--Cliff [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lpletch on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:58 PM EST |
"Walt Scacchi, a senior research scientist at the University of
California at Irvine's Institute for Software Research, has been looking at
open-source projects from an analytical perspective, studying the open-source
model in an ongoing, 10-year project that draws some comforting conclusions for
open-source sponsors and developers."
Link
These guys
spent ten years studying the open-source model.
What did they find in ten
years?
Nothing we couldn't have told them in one day.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:59 PM EST |
| Interesting analysis her: http://www.esj.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=806 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shoden on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:00 PM EST |
Correct, but in this situation, M$ is sitting in the principal's office due to
bullying in the past, so he paid the annoying wimpy guy to be extra annoying.
---
S.K.
MR. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I have a smaller, obviously --[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:01 PM EST |
They can. They have. And SCO didn't care and sued IBM anyway. I am pretty sure
Novell's legal department has been working on a lawsuit the last month. That's
why SCO is so busy trying to get a final big pump. Novell's copyright
registration is a clear sign that Novell will start litigation against SCO
pretty soon. Maybe Novell will even argue that the asset purchase agreement is
invalid because of severe violations of SCO's obligations and Novell will ask
the court to return all rights to them ... then McBride would be standing there
with pants down and a 900 pound gorilla running towards him ... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:12 PM EST |
All that's apparent that SCO is bending the rules with every single loop hole
available. SCO is not only wrongfully attacking the IT community but the order
of law meant to protect us. To me this is akin to a broad daylight
"stick-up" in front of the police who are looking in the opposite
direction. Why is our justice so helpless in face of SCO's absurd behavior? I
think the longer this case drags out the more resentment it will build up
against our current white house administration. IMHO: There's a connection
for convicted monopolist Microsoft getting off with less than a handslap and
SCOX. They are protected, allowed to have their way...
The only proper punishment for this criminal act is to strip them of all and any
profits reaped from their mayhem. Then we should stick a huge litigation
lawsuit up Canopy's to send a warning message to would be copy cats.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:18 PM EST |
| PJ,
In the following paragraph, there seems to be a redundancy as
high-lighted in bold face. Or my reading comprehension is rusty. Either that or
my English-as-a-second-language skill needs polishing. :)
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 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. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:31 PM EST |
Did anyone catch this on SCO's Web Page:
Vintela
Authentication
from SCO
UNIX AUTHENTICATION
& ID MANAGEMENT USING
MICROSOFT ACTIVE
DIRECTORY
Bobcat
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Dave on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:38 PM EST |
I am not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice.
That said, if I
received this letter, here's how I would be inclined to
respond.
Re: AT&T/SCO License No.
SOFT-____
Dear Mr.
Broderick,
As required by the above referenced
software licensing agreement, I hereby certify that [name of my company]'s use
of Software Products subject to the Agreement has been reviewed and that each
such Software Product is being used solely on the following Designated CPUs, in
full compliance with the provisions of the
Agreement:
[list of location, type, and serial number
of all designated CPUs]
Any thoughts? Would it be better to
specifically address the fact that they are not entitled to any further
information under the agreement?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:48 PM EST |
Sample Replies...
"Yes, I use Linux, extensively throughout my organization thanks, this was
obtained from SCO's predecessors who released it under the GPL. Ahh but then I
hear you didnt mean to did you, oh dear, tell you what - just tell me which
lines in which files I should delete. If I agree that this code is burdened by
SCO copyright I will delete them immediately. I cant be fairer than
that."
OR EVEN
"License, what license, Ahh that one - but we didnt mean to sign THAT
license, it was a big mistake, we didnt understand the implications of it all
back then, surely you dont want to hold us to that"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:54 PM EST |
"2. You, your contractors and your employees have, to your knowledge, held
at all times all parts of the Software Products (including methods and concepts)
in confidence for SCO."
If they are trying to make it appear that their confidential stuff has always
been treated as confidential ... it's way too late. Caldersa released enough
"old" UNIX to make all but a small part of the current stuff public
knowledge.
"4. Neither you nor your contractors or employees with access to the
Software Products have contributed any software code based on the Software
Product for use in Linux or any other UNIX-based software product."
I believe that oldSCO itself may have done this.
OR, perhaps htey are using this letter as a way to help gather the data IBM's
discovery request (the who, when, where of source code exposure).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: banjopaterson on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:05 PM EST |
A: Start with a large business and let Darl McB. be your CEO (and Kev McB. be
your solicitor!)
Seriously... apart from the fact they said they would do it, why on earth would
you send this type of letter to your customers?
It is my belief that this will be over before 3rd quarter this year.
The Banjo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: geoff lane on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST |
Most of the time we are assuming that SCO is an example of a company gone mad,
but what if we look at SCO as a company facing almost certain death in the next
couple of years?
SCO survives because it has a pretty good hold on a number of major point of
sale contracts (ie McDonalds) and hotel management contracts (Howard Johnson,
Knights Inn, Ramada Inn, Super 8, Travelodge etc)
There cannot be one of these companies that are not evaluating alternative
platforms for their systems. The possibility that some of these companies will
migrate to a Microsoft platform is high (that's the way of the world sadly.)
But, a Linux platform promises to be even cheaper assuming that the needed
application software becomes available.
There is little SCO can do to prevent migration to Windows, but if they can
introduce sufficient FUD they may just be able to prevent their existing major
clients moving to Linux during the next upgrade cycle. This would protect
business for another three years or so.
But things didn't go to plan and everything since last March has been nothing
but panic moves.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:08 PM EST |
I was wondering if all these recipient companies are in meetings with each other
to discuss their options?
Is this likely?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:49 PM EST |
Gee, good thing I got OpenLinux from Caldera. That means I'm indemnified from
all these pesky intellectual property lawsuits, right?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 06:51 PM EST |
| SGI is weak. I hope Red Hat buys them. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST |
This was my favorite part:
SCO will not allow UNIX Licensees to make
any improper
use of the Software Products, including the use of the
Software
Products to assist development of Linux.
What a bunch of whack-jobs!
Linux surpassed SCO UNIX
years ago, quite independently of UNIX itself. It
would
be counter-productive to try to use SCO UNIX to "assist in
the
development of Linux".
What fun it would be to read the letters that come
back to
SCO from their licensees in response to this.
I see excellent
opportunities right now for a Linux
company to put together replacements for
the fast-food POS
systems currently running SCO UNIX. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 06:59 PM EST |
"You are not running Linux binary code that was compiled from any version
of Linux that contains our copyrighted application binary interface code
("ABI Code") specifically identified in the attached notification
letter."
Where in the agreement does it require licensee to specify what it is NOT
running?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:03 PM EST |
| Well, they could if they wanted to, if you buy SCO's theories. After all,
Novell has copyrights on the same Unix code as SCO.
Here's Novell's 1-year
stock chart (scroll toward the bottom). Almost as good as SCO's.
http:/
/finance.lycos.com/qc/stocks/quotes.aspx?symbols=NASDAQ:NOVL [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:31 PM EST |
I was wondering if any future version of the GPL, with hindsight, might clarify
potential copyright distputes.
"You accept that no warranty is given or implied that any software
distributed herein is free of copyright or patent infringements. In the event
of a proven (in a court of law or on the balance of all available evidence and
expert opinion or by notification from the program author) infringement you
agree to (immediately or as soon as possible) remove the infringing code at the
source code level (at your own expense) Or if possible obtain a non-infringing
release from the original author or the open source commons. You must also
cease to distribute further copies of software containing the infringing
code"
I am thinking that a provision like this with the emphasis on PROVEN should make
it harder for companies like sco to hound users. Also it makes it clear that
there IS a remedy within OS to deal with infringements.
IANAL
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:35 PM EST |
Does anyone know if SCO complied with the Judges 30 day notice in answer to
IBM's motion to Compel. Shouldn't there be documents or something from IBM?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Off Topic But ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:59 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: stevenzenith on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:43 PM EST |
I am curious about the International implications of these actions. Is the
practical effect of SCO's action and letters such as this to cripple the USA
industry?
Are SCO sending such letters to non-USA based corporations?
It seems to me that there is a broader public interest here.
Steven[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ERBaller on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:55 PM EST |
Take another look at the certification paragraph. Go past the point where it
talks about certification and designated CPUs...
"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.)"
NOTE: It says "in full compliance with the provisions of this
Agreement."
I've seen many posts saying that all is required by certification is the
designated CPU number, etc. But the last couple of lines imply that, at a
minimum, SCO can request certification from licensee's such that they are
complying with ALL PROVISIONS of the WHOLE agreement. So in SCO's world, they
are perfectly within the terms of their license to request licensees to provide
statements to all their questions.
What's the point? It seems to me that, by the terms of their license and the
paragraphs they cite in their letter, if they can get one or more of their
licensees to admit and to certify that they made contributions to LINUX, in
violation of the licensing agreement, then they own at least that portion of
LINUX as a derivative work under the terms of the licensed software. Remember,
it doesn't matter what YOU think here, it matters what SCO thinks here. And
we've all seen what SCO can do when they don't appear to have any case at
all...
If I were to receive one of these letters, I believe I would pull out my
licensing agreement with SCO and sit down with a lawyer, paying particular
attention to the paragraphs cited by SCO to make sure they are not misquoting.
I think I've seen many comments to that effect from others as well. Remember,
look at this through SCO's eyes, and you may get a better feel for where they
want to go and what they might be looking for.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Beam-me-up on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:57 PM EST |
I have a quick Question.
How can SCO claim any violation of IP when they contributed the ABI code to
Linux ?
How can they then justify their use of there Linux Personality Module that does
basicaly the same type of thing and the Linux ABI but in reverse?
How can they not see the double standard ?
Or am I just confused, I cant seem to think like SCO, maybe my own sense of
morals gets in the way.
---
Beam Me Up Scotty, There no Intelligent life in SCO[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- ABI Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 08:28 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:58 PM EST |
Okay wondering here not having read the DMCA fully but can linus/other linux
contributers take legal action under the DMCA for a false claim of copywrite
ownership? or does SCO have to actually use the force of the DMCA before they
can do this??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 08:06 PM EST |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/insideit/story/0,13270,1013442,00.html
"But until SCO's case is thrown out of court or negotiated away,
companies using Linux are at some (very small) risk of being made to pay for
what some teenage hackers might have got up to in their bedrooms."
sigh
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 08:28 PM EST |
There is a lot of speculation that this (partially) is about SCO getting answers
to IBM interrogatories, for example whom they disclosed trade secrets too
It could be... but if it is it will NOT work
Why? For the simple reason that it is very unlikely that 6,000 are all the
AT&T UNIX licensees
It is a matter of public record (BSD case) that AT&T did not have complete
records of their licensees. AT&T admitted it. It came out, because, for
example, University of California did not appear in AT&T's list when they
tried to produce one.
If AT&T did not have complete list of licensees, it is virtually impossible
to believe that SCO could reconstruct it nearly 12 years later.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:37 PM EST |
Consider this - you've been humming along happily using your proprietary
software (doesn't matter which company it came from) and this SCO stuff finally
gets escalated to the point that you pay serious attention.
With a letter like this, you HAVE to start thinking that as soon as any other
company you get proprietary stuff from starts running into financial trouble,
they may start treating you like SCO is treating their "customers".
If it were me, I'd do everything possible to make sure I had NOTHING that was
proprietary, nothing that I didn't have multiple sources of support from.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:38 PM EST |
| My sense of the ridiculous took over after reading SCO's letter. The idea of
"grab what you can when you can regardless of logic" inspired me. Okay, so this
post may not be entirely on topic, but... then again, it may be prescient.
There's a frightening though.
This is satire. If the concept is foreign to
you, or if you are completely devoid of a sense of humor, please do not read any
further. Satire is intended to poke fun at an issue or otherwise make a person
think about the issue in a different light. Anyone who takes this as the literal
truth needs to stay away from satire. This means you, Darl!
SCO Files
Against... Everything
Scud News Service - 6 January 2003
Lindon,
Utah - Following on the heals of the recent release of letters to companies
licensed to use the Santa Cruz Operation (SCO; market: SCOX) version of UNIX
requiring certification of compliance for those licenses, SCO has announced a
further development in their efforts to bolster their claims to any operating
system that bears any resemblance to UNIX.
"We have concluded that anything
that uses a binary-like method or concept is hereby proprietary to SCO," said
Darl McBride, CEO of SCO. "Since we contend the majority of ABI (application
binary interfaces) are binary, and since SCO has developed ABIs, and since the
poles of magnetism are binary in nature, SCO owns magnetism. Anyone who uses any
device that requires magnetism, including by not limited to a compass, is hereby
required to pay a license fee to SCO."
McBride went on to list thousands of
devices that use magnetism, including magnets, that violate SCO's intellectual
property (IP) rights. McBride also said they were not finished compiling the
list and planned to do so in the near future. SCO lawyers then went on the
offensive by issuing letters of complaint to every industrial manufacturing firm
in the world. Furthermore, the estates of Thomas Edison and Guglielmo Marconi
have been duly served with cease and desist orders to stop purporting any right
of invention using anything that could possible be considered binary in
nature.
"On and off switches belong to us," Kevin McBride, brother to CEO
Darl McBride and chief legal representative for SCO, told financial analysts
immediately following the initial announcement. "Anything with the number 1 or 0
or 10 is our IP as well. We also think anything with the letters i and o,
regardless of case, are property of SCO since they are often used to denote a
binary form of logic."
The news sent shockwaves throughout the financial
community. SCO stock prices saw a dramatic increase of one cent, but it was
immediately erased by a loss of two cents, which then saw a change increase of
three cents, and it was all done in an effort to eliminate any possible
connection to a binary construct. Scientists around the world were left
scratching their heads trying to understand the scope of claim. Throughout the
United States, teachers instantly scrapped any test questions phrased as "true
or false" under the contention that it is a binary formulation. One major
company in Redmond, Washington, turned off the electricity in all buildings in
support of SCO.
"This is, no doubt, a serious claim on the part of SCO," Dr.
Wilbert Hornthwacker, noted mathematician who works exclusively with ones and
zeros, said in a telephone interview. "If I understand it correctly, we
shouldn't even be having this conversation... because of the telephone. I am
particularly concerned about prime numbers since they can only be divided by one
or themself, which yields one, and that is part of binary
mathematics."
While Dr. Hornthwacker concerns are duly noted, it seems the
impending litigation for those failing to pursue licensing agreement will run
far and wide. David Boise, famed lawyer on retention to SCO, held a separate
press conference in Pennsylvania. In his address to Wall Street analysts, he
indicated that SCO was already preparing to sue at least one company. When
pressed for details, Boise would only comment vaguely about whom the possible
recipient of the litigation may be.
"Let's just say those people in
Lancaster County are not even immune," Boise was at last heard to
mutter.
Early speculation seems to point to the Amish as the first
contenders for a court case. Ezekiel Grossman, acting as a spokesman for the
Amish community in Lancaster, was unable to give direct comment. Mr. Grossman
did not even seem to understand the concepts of binary construction.
Furthermore, he said his people tended to eschew magnetism for the most part,
but seemed troubled they would have to give up their compasses.
"Does zis
mean ve vill haff to count differently from zis day hence?" He asked in
reply.
Until such time as the courts decide the legitimacy of SCO's claims,
the question will remain open.
CopyLeft firmly in place, along with my
tongue in cheek. RDH [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:54 PM EST |
What if Novell Got permission from all other parties and GPLed (or BSDed?, or
Freewared! ) SystemV???[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 12:53 AM EST |
...........should begin by reading all the replies to this article. One could
pick any of various responses or compile them into a complex response.
No one is going to want to do this work. Being one of 6,000 thousand one can do
nothing. One can say they don't use the stuff anymore, and then change to
something else as soon as possible at possibly less cost than complying with the
demands of the letter.
Another response is to reply and tell them how many cpu's use it. Everything
else is perfect, thank you very much.
If you are not the target already, this letter is not going to change anything.
The best response it to begin looking into the matter and send them a letter by
the thirtieth day asking for the time you need to do all this stuff. Certainly
at least a few months.
---
webster
Recent Windows refugee[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 03:14 AM EST |
| I was just comparing the contract sections quoted in the SCO Letter
with the same sections in the only actual license document I could find, the AT&T/IBM
one. What got me looking was the "emphasis added" to paragraph 2.04 which
really appears to be completely different from the contract, but then I found in
the IBM agreement at the end of paragraph 7.06a and apparently ommitted by SCO
when they quoted that paragraph:
If information relating to a SOFTWARE
PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any time becomes available without
restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE or its
employees, LICENSEE'S obligations under this section shall not apply to such
information after such time.
If this clause is really in most
agreements and not just the IBM one, I can see why SCO omitted it from the
letter. It looks to me like if some code was put into Linux by someone other
than the company the letter was sent to that the licensee has no further
obligations under that section towards that code. Let's say that code was put
into Linux by IBM. Wouldn't that actually indemnify all other licensees against
redistributing that code since a third party made it available to the public?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 03:48 AM EST |
These letters are decidedly hostile and will piss off their customers.... which
gets me thinking.
What does SCO have to lose? Do most of these people pay yearly amounts of money
to SCO? I think not but I don't know.
Were these people going to buy new stuff from SCO? Again, I don't know for
sure, but I do know their software sucks, they are basing their business on
litigation and trying to capture Linux and say "mine mine," so
again, do they have anything to lose by pissing off their customers?
Is this just another desperation ploy, or are they realizing they have no hope
as a software company and are trying to pump up their stocks again by
threatening their customers?
I really can't understand what they are doing.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 04:56 AM EST |
Someone thought it would be a good idea to make the same comment
14 times, anonymously.
I therefore had to spend time, which I have very little of, cleaning up
after the person.
Please don't do that. It doesn't help. I happen to agree with the thought
expressed, but 14 times? And phrasing it slightly differently, I assume to
make it look like it was many people expressing the same idea, is not my
idea of honesty. I understand the impulse was probably a desire to be
effective at countering FUD, but I think it matters that we stay honest and
clean and not become cynical or use cynical tools in response to the
other side of the table.
So, please don't do that again. Thanks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: NicholasDonovan on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 09:39 AM EST |
When I contacted the Attorney Generals Office here in Texas regarding SCO's
'letters', the attorney I spoke with became very excited and said words to the
effect of, "If they are trying to extort money from Texas business', they
will be prosecuted."
The things she mentioned were in the realm of possibilities of fun things like
'Theft by Deception', 'Mail Fraud' and even possible 'Wire Fraud'
violations if any could be found.
In short, if they can't prove legal ownership of a product and are threatening
a business here in Texas before a judgement in their favour has been rendered,
McBride & Co. will be wearing pinstripes.
Funny, I can't say as I've received my letter as of yet and I've given my
address. Hmmmm....
Cheers,
Nick
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Now I understand! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 11:20 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 12:21 PM EST |
My answer would be...
Dear SCO
We will not furnish the information you demand because we are terminating this
license. We no longer run your products on any of our CPU,s. You will be
receiving all our licensed materials shortly. POSTAGE DUE!
Have a good trip to bankruptcy court.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 07 2004 @ 04:24 PM EST |
Isn't some of the information requested in this likely to be required for SCO
to properly answer the IBM interrogatories?
I can't find the link, but something along the lines of:
"For each alleged breach, indicate source file, line and
contributor"?
Maybe I'm just plain wrong of course. It has happened once or twice before ;o)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
