|
SCO's 12/19/03 "Dear Linux User" Letter - as text |
|
Sunday, April 03 2005 @ 09:11 PM EDT
|
I've been working with Groklaw's heretic on a patents resource page, and in the course of that project, I realized that we never put up the Dear Linux User letter [PDF] as text. So here it is, at long last.
In SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its Counterclaim for Copyright Infringement (Eighth Counterclaim), it claims it never attempted to license or sublicense Linux. I'm thinking it might be useful to put all in one place everything SCO ever said in the media and elsewhere about that license. So if you have urls at hand, please list them, so we can make a collection.
*******************************
December 19, 2003
Re: The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”)
Dear Linux User,
In May 2003, SCO warned about enterprise use of the Linux operating system in violation of its intellectual property rights in UNIX technology. Without exhausting or explaining all potential claims, this letter addresses one specific area in which certain versions of Linux violate SCO's rights in UNIX.
In this letter we are identifying a portion of our copyright protected code that has been incorporated into Linux without our authorization. Also, our copyright management information has been removed from these files.
These facts support our position that the use of the Linux operating system in a commercial setting violates our rights under the United States Copyright Act, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We are notifying you of these facts so you can take steps to discontinue these violations. We believe these violations are serious, and we will take appropriate actions to protect our rights. No one may use our copyrighted code except as authorized by us. The details of our position are set forth below. Once you have reviewed our position, we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem.
Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces (“ABI Code”) have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted UNIX code base and contributed to Linux for distribution under the General Public License (“GPL”) without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. While some application programming interfaces (“API Code”) have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX operating systems and to assist UNIX licensees in the development process. The UNIX ABIs were never intended or authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux. As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux, and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX copyrighted software code.
Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. Files in Linux version 2.4.21 and other versions that incorporate the copyrighted binary interfaces include:
include/asm-alpha/errno.h
include/asm-arm/errno.h
include/asm-cris/errno.h
include/asm-i386/errno.h
include/asm-ia64/errno.h
include/asm-m68k/errno.h
include/asm-mips/errno.h
include/asm-mips64/errno.h
include/asm-parisc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc/errno.h
include/asm-ppc64/errno.h
include/asm-s390/errno.h
include/asm-s390x/errno.h
include/asm-sh/errno.h
include/asm-sparc/errno.h
include/asm-sparc64/errno.h
include/asm-x86_64/errno.h
include/asm-alpha/signal.h
include/asm-arm/signal.h
include/asm-cris/signal.h
include/asm-i386/signal.h
include/asm-ia64/signal.h
include/asm-m68k/signal.h
include/asm-mips/signal.h
include/asm-mips64/signal.h
include/asm-parisc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc/signal.h
include/asm-ppc64/signal.h
include/asm-s390/signal.h
include/asm-s390x/signal.h
include/asm-sh/signal.h
include/asm-sparc/signal.h
include/asm-sparc64/signal.h
include/asm-x86_64/signal.h
include/linux/stat.h
include/linux/ctype.h
lib/ctype.c
include/asm-alpha/ioctl.h
include/asm-alpha/ioctls.h
include/asm-arm/ioctl.h
include/asm-cris/ioctl.h
include/asm-i386/ioctl.h
include/asm-ia64/ioctl.h
include/asm-m68k/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctl.h
include/asm-mips64/ioctls.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctl.h
include/asm-parisc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc/ioctls.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-ppc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-s390/ioctl.h
include/asm-s390x/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctl.h
include/asm-sh/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc/ioctls.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctl.h
include/asm-sparc64/ioctls.h
include/asm-x86_64/ioctl.h
include/linux/ipc.h
include/linux/acct.h
include/asm-sparc/a.out.h
include/linux/a.out.h
arch/mips/boot/ecoff.h
include/asm-sparc/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc/solerrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/bsderrno.h
include/asm-sparc64/solerrno.h
The code identified above was also part of a settlement agreement between the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc. (collectively “BSDI”) and UNIX Systems Laboratories, Inc. regarding alleged violations by BSDI of USL's rights in UNIX technology. The settlement agreement between USL and BSDI addressed conditions upon which BSDI could continue to distribute its version of UNIX, BSD Lite 4.4, or any successor versions, including certain “UNIX Derived Files” which include the ABI Code. A complete listing of the UNIX Derived Files is attached. The ABI Code identified above is part of the UNIX Derived Files and, as such, must carry USL / SCO copyright notices and may not be used in any GPL distribution,
2
inasmuch as the affirmative consent of the copyright holder has not been obtained, and will not be obtained, for such a distribution under the GPL.
Use in Linux of any ABI Code or other UNIX Derived Files identified above constitutes a violation of the United States Copyright Act. Distribution of the copyrighted ABI Code, or binary code compiled using the ABI code, with copyright management information deleted or altered, violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C. §1202. DMCA liability extends to those who have reasonable grounds to know that a distribution (or re-distribution as required by the GPL) of the altered code or copyright information will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under the DMCA. In addition, neither SCO nor any predecessor in interest has ever placed an affirmative notice in Linux that the copyrighted code in question could be used or distributed under the GPL. As a result, any distribution of Linux by a software vendor or a re-distribution of Linux by an end user that contains any of the identified UNIX code violates SCO's rights under the DMCA, insofar as the distributor knows of these violations.
As stated above, SCO's review is ongoing and will involve additional disclosures of code misappropriation. Certain UNIX code, methods and concepts, which we also claim are being used improperly in Linux, will be produced in the pending litigation between SCO and IBM under a confidentiality order.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
THE SCO GROUP, INC.
By:______________________________
Ryan E. Tibbitts
General Counsel
3
|
|
Authored by: NastyGuns on Sunday, April 03 2005 @ 10:19 PM EDT |
Correction go here please.
---
NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back,
please keep me here." Unknown.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NastyGuns on Sunday, April 03 2005 @ 10:25 PM EDT |
Please put all Off Topic (OT) comments here.
Creating links are a courtesy. Change post mode to "html" and format
links this way:
<a href="http://www.example.com">your words here</a>
---
NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back,
please keep me here." Unknown.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rm6990 on Sunday, April 03 2005 @ 10:26 PM EDT |
"
The code identified above was also part of a settlement agreement between the
University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc.
(collectively “BSDI”) and UNIX Systems Laboratories, Inc. regarding alleged
violations by BSDI of USL's rights in UNIX technology. The settlement agreement
between USL and BSDI addressed conditions upon which BSDI could continue to
distribute its version of UNIX, BSD Lite 4.4, or any successor versions,
including certain “UNIX Derived Files” which include the ABI Code. A complete
listing of the UNIX Derived Files is attached. The ABI Code identified above is
part of the UNIX Derived Files and, as such, must carry USL / SCO copyright
notices and may not be used in any GPL distribution,
"
Am I reading this right? Wasn't the university authorized to release this code
under their own license? I thought it was the Restricted Files that the
University had to remove from BSD. Maybe SCO should have read the BSD License
and the Settlement agreement before posting this trash. Or am I wrong here?
---
http://members.shaw.ca/ryan_mcgregor[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, April 03 2005 @ 10:42 PM EDT |
How can BSD error codes be an ATT API?
---
Rsteinmetz
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 03 2005 @ 10:47 PM EDT |
the tcp/ip stack in windows. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Observer on Sunday, April 03 2005 @ 11:47 PM EDT |
I'm not sure what the point here is. As usual, SCO tells people that, if they
are using Linux, then they are "doing something bad," without exactly specifying
what exactly that bad thing is, or what the remedy is. They then say,
"If you are being hounded by a guilty conscience (or if you think our lawyers
are really scary), then please call us," but they don't offer any
remedies in the letter. As such, the letter doesn't offer any license, though
it clearly states that their gripe is in respect to both Copyright infringement
and the DMCA.
As always, lots of heat and smoke, but no fire.
---
The Observer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Night Flyer on Monday, April 04 2005 @ 12:03 AM EDT |
Where ever you place this letter in the data base, please include links to the
authoritative sources that totally debunk its content.
When I read it I got a shiver, even though I know better.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 04 2005 @ 12:34 AM EDT |
part
1
part
2
part
3 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: zbowling on Monday, April 04 2005 @ 03:12 AM EDT |
<blockquote>As a result, any distribution of Linux by a software vendor or
a re-distribution of Linux by an end user that contains any of the identified
UNIX code violates SCO's rights under the DMCA, insofar as the distributor knows
of these violations.</blockquote>
I like this part. They basicly claim the long list of file names is enough to
say the distributor knows of the abi's in violation and they are not required
under them DMCA to take action. Thats is a bunch of code they claim foul on and
its relatively old code as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 04 2005 @ 10:24 AM EDT |
I remember reading a really great response to the above from a big name sports
or shoe retailer. It was hilarous how they politely told SCO to get bent. I
went searching and can't seem to find it.
Anyone got a link?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|