|
|
| Another Addition: SCO's May 2003 "Dear commercial Linux user" letter |
 |
|
Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:53 AM EST
|
Because Groklaw only began to cover SCO's litigation after SCO sent a letter to commercial Linux users in May 2003, somehow the letter never made it into our collection. But now I'm happy to add it to Groklaw's history of the SCO litigations. Its permanent home will be on our Contracts page, if you want to find it down the road. Can you imagine if I had not taken time off to find things like this? Here's the intriguing part: there is no mention of UnixWare by name at all.
Instead it talks firmly about System V code written by AT&T: Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers who had access to UNIX source code distributed by AT&T and were subject to confidentiality agreements, including confidentiality of the methods and concepts involved in software design. We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the purposes of obfuscating their original source. La de da. So, you mean SCOsource was really primarily about System V and not UnixWare? That truth later morphed upside down and sideways at trial, after the Utah District Court decided that Novell didn't transfer its copyrights to SCO in 1995. But here it is, the first SCOsource story on so-called infringement, in black and white.
Here's the wording of the entire letter, posted to SCO's web site at the time and saved all these years in the pile of things to add if I ever had enough time. SCO has removed the letter, natch, from its site. [ Update: It's back or in any case here [PDF], if you don't mind visiting their site. End update.] I'll show you a screenshot, just to give you the flavor (you'll have to forgive that I surfed blocking images, as is my wont), and then the wording of the letter, for the sake of historians and to provide the complete picture:
***********************
May 12, 2003
Dear commercial Linux user:
SCO holds the rights to the UNIX operating system software originally licensed by AT&T to approximately 6,000 companies and institutions worldwide (the “UNIX Licenses”). The vast majority of UNIX software used in enterprise applications today is a derivative work of the software originally distributed under our UNIX Licenses. Like you, we have an obligation to our shareholders to protect our intellectual property and other valuable rights.
In recent years, a UNIX-like operating system has emerged and has been distributed in the enterprise marketplace by various software vendors. This system is called Linux. We believe that Linux is, in material part, an unauthorized derivative of UNIX.
As you may know, the development process for Linux has differed substantially from the development process for other enterprise operating systems. Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software. This process is designed to monitor the security and ownership of intellectual property rights associated with the code.
By contrast, much of Linux has been built from contributions by numerous unrelated and unknown software developers, each contributing a small section of code. There is no mechanism inherent in the Linux development process to assure that intellectual property rights, confidentiality or security are protected. The Linux process does not prevent inclusion of code that has been stolen outright, or developed by improper use of proprietary methods and concepts.
Many Linux contributors were originally UNIX developers who had access to UNIX source code distributed by AT&T and were subject to confidentiality agreements, including confidentiality of the methods and concepts involved in software design. We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code have been copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the purposes of obfuscating their original source.
As a consequence of Linux’s unrestricted authoring process, it is not surprising that Linux distributors do not warrant the legal integrity of the Linux code provided to customers. Therefore legal liability that may arise from the Linux development process may also rest with the end user.
We believe that Linux infringes on our UNIX intellectual property and other rights. We intend to aggressively protect and enforce these rights. Consistent with this effort, on March 7, we initiated legal action against IBM for alleged unfair competition and breach of contract with respect to our UNIX rights. This case is pending in Utah Federal District Court. As you are aware, this case has been widely reported and commented upon in the press. If you would like additional information, a copy of the complaint and response may be viewed at our web site at www.sco.com/scosource.
For the reasons explained above, we have also announced the suspension of our own Linux-related activities until the issues surrounding Linux intellectual property and the attendant risks are better understood and properly resolved.
Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing violation of our intellectual property or other rights.
SCO’s actions may prove unpopular with those who wish to advance or otherwise benefit from Linux as a free software system for use in enterprise applications. However, our property and contract rights are important and valuable; not only to us, but to every individual and every company whose livelihood depends on the continued viability of intellectual and intangible property rights in a digital age.
Yours truly,
THE SCO GROUP
By: _________________________
Darl McBride
President and CEO
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:04 AM EST |
| Please place corrections to the article in this thread.
Please name the
post after the correction.
---
"Then you admit confirming not denying
you ever said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:06 AM EST |
| Discuss Groklaw News Picks here.
Please say which News Pick you are
commenting on.
---
"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever
said that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:09 AM EST |
| Discuss any other matters here.
Check "Here's how to post in HTML" (below
the comment box) for more info.
Please NOTE: The RSS feed is
down.
---
"Then you admit confirming not denying you ever said
that?"
"NO! ... I mean Yes! WHAT?"
"I'll put `maybe.'"
--Bloom County [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- RSS broken - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 04:23 PM EST
- RSS broken - Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 04:40 PM EST
- RSS broken - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 05:56 PM EST
- RSS broken - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 09:56 PM EST
- Trouble with OpenBTS - Copyrights, Patents and a Judge: Oh My! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 05:10 PM EST
- Sun ODF plugin v3.0 now available - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:48 PM EST
- FOSS leaders speak on MS v TomTom - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 01:06 AM EST
- My kind of portable - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 05:28 AM EST
- Apple & Psystar agree to protective order - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 27 2009 @ 05:54 PM EST
- [OT] Off Topic discussion - Authored by: camc on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 01:22 AM EST
- [announce] KNOPPIX v6.0.1 released on CD - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 05:55 AM EST
- Perens' analysis of MS v. TomTom - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 04:25 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Gringo on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:21 AM EST |
I noted this link on the screen shot and input it to
Google to see where it
would lead. Found a link leading
directly to SCO, which I will not make
clickable...
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=109149
Also found a
link to the original
Groklaw story "SCO Falls Downstairs,
Hitting its Head on Every Step -
Updated: SCOsource is
Born" from May 17 2003.
The search term lead to
many interesting write ups in
leading publications, and I recomend anyone
interested
input that same term. However, I did not find a single link
to
Gartner, perhaps because you need to register to search
their site.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Gringo on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:31 AM EST |
Check out the following link... and you will see that
SCO still believes
they own Unix. I suppose they also
believe black is white and that it never
rains in
California.
http://www.sco.com/scosource/
"SCO is the
owner of the UNIX Operating System
Intellectual Property that dates back to
1969, when the
UNIX System was created at AT&T's Bell Laboratories.
Through a series of mergers and acquisitions, SCO has
acquired ownership of
the copyrights and core technology
associated with the UNIX System"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 10:32 AM EST |
So why has SCO not been charged with Mail Fraud.
This is clearly an extortion letter based on no facts at all.
Surely at least one of the recipients of this letter could have found a
prosecutor who would be interested in this.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 11:06 AM EST |
“SCO’s actions may prove unpopular”
Really? Might that actually
turn out to be the case? Who would have though that..?
\Cyp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dwiget001 on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 12:19 PM EST |
"...Commercial software is built by carefully selected and screened teams
of programmers working to build proprietary, secure software...."
No, in some cases this is true, but the majority of "screening" being
done is simply signing an NDA.
And, as far as "carefully selected", well, in my experience in the
software development field for 20 years now, the selection has been based on
"does he/she have the skills to do the job" and "how much can we
afford to pay him/her based on what we need done and the speed at which we need
it done"?
I dare say that SCOXQ.PK was stretching the actual truth of the matter, by very
large margins.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crs17 on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 01:25 PM EST |
Wow. Was SCO suing grandmothers also? By now we know how far the music
industry got.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 02:07 PM EST |
how about a copy of the letter to Congress where they said the GPL was
unconstitutional!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 02:20 PM EST |
We have evidence that portions of UNIX System V software code
have been copied into Linux and that additional other portions of UNIX System V
software code have been modified and copied into Linux, seemingly for the
purposes of obfuscating their original source.
If that's
so, they why didn't they identify any of those lines of code back when they were
required to? Quoting David
Marriott (emphasis added):
And if Your Honor will look at tab 6
of the
book which we've provided, you will see there an
illustration of SCO's
failings in this respect. As to
not a single one, Judge, of the 187 items did
SCO provide
line information relating to System V. Not a single line
of
System V code is identified with respect to any of
those 187
items.
[...]
We asked for version, file and
line information.
It's undisputed they didn't provide
precisely what we asked for, Your Honor.
There is not
any debate about that. If you look at Exhibit 6 to the
book, is
there a single line of System V code provided
for any of the 187 items? No.
Undisputed. Magistrate
Judge Wells acknowledged that. What more
particularized
finding could there be?
---
"When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Thursday, February 26 2009 @ 03:35 PM EST |
| This letter still has not been removed: Dear Linux
user.
BTW does copyright apply to these letters?
---
Microsoft
is nailing up its own coffin from the inside. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 28 2009 @ 03:28 AM EST |
Surely they know the game is up now? Why are they still trying to intimidate
people? I think it is time we put them in their place.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Sunday, March 01 2009 @ 08:06 PM EST |
It was attached at Exhibit I to IBM's Amended Counterclaims
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Doc-41-I.pdf
It was the topic of a Groklaw article on November 27, 2003:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031127100124265
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: crs17 on Tuesday, March 03 2009 @ 08:20 AM EST |
The update above saying that the May 2003 letter has reappeared on the SCO
site does not appear to be correct. The link in the update points to SCO's
copy of the December 2003 letter to users, which has long been fully
documented on Groklaw (and is available on Groklaw here).
No big
deal.
BTW, I was nosing around the SCO site - I know, PJ doesn't approve of
that - trying to answer a related question. As far as I can tell, both of these
letters are not accessible by following links from SCO's home page. I
downloaded everything I thought might be relevant and did a grep on the html
pages looking for "abi_letter" which is part of the .pdf file name on SCO's
site. I found nothing. Does anyone know if these letters are truely available
on the SCO site? Ie, can you find them without knowing the URLs in advance?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 05 2009 @ 01:14 PM EST |
If Novell retained the UNIX copyrights, why are they currently in SCO's
possesion? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
