decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
SCO Sends DMCA Notices
Monday, December 22 2003 @ 08:41 AM EST

SCO tells us they have sent out DMCA notication letters but to whom and about what they aren't yet saying. They put out a press release describing the letters they have sent out to certain users of Linux. It's all very vague, as usual. They refer to DMCA Section 1202 which you can read here.

There is no specific identification of what code they are talking about and no indication who got the letter, but here is what we know so far. Their press release, after describing the unpleasant letters they have also sent to licensees (who I'm sure are delighted to be in a business relationship with SCO this morning) says this about the DMCA letters:

"DMCA Notification Letter

"SCO has commenced providing notification to selected Fortune 1000 Linux end users outlining additional violations of SCO's copyrights contained in Linux. Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces have been copied verbatim from the UNIX System V code base and contributed to Linux without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. This ABI code was part of a 1994 settlement agreement involving the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc., (BSDI).

"The letter states: '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 codified by Congress at 17 U.S.C. Section 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.'

"The letter also states, '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.'"

Unless I am missing something, this is another threat, not the real thing. The NY Times reports that the letter includes this:

"The letters include an olive branch as well as a threat. 'Once you have reviewed our position,' the Linux letter said, 'we will be happy to further discuss your options and work with you to remedy this problem.'"

Nothing the SCO Group does is ever normal in my experience. You send take down notices to ISPs. So what is this exactly? A notice that the recipient might get sued for copyright violations someday? But SCO is not, at this point in time, suing anyone. This couldn't have anything to do with their 4th quarter financial report scheduled for this morning, could it? Maybe they would like a lot of questions about the letter instead?


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )