SCO
Continues To Stir The Linux Pot
SCO Changes What It’s Saying
SCO
has now agreed (in the Amended Filing) that IBM does own copyrights
to much of the intellectual property (IP) that SCO is arguing IBM
had no right to give away. This
includes JFS (Journaling File System), NUMA (Non-uniform Memory
Access) software (but NUMA is actually a combination of hardware and
software and IBM owns IP rights to both), RCU (Read, Copy, and
Update), etc.
It
still claims, however, that IBM is in breech of its contract and
further claims that these IBM copyrights are derivative products of
UNIX and belong to SCO. That
seems to say that much of a future lawsuit will focus on the issue
of whether the IBM IP is derivative of UNIX or simply separate IP.
Now stay turned for some comments in the next section.
The (Mozilla) Quest For Truth
Mike
Angelo, a writer for MozillaQuest has written a series of three
articles about the amended SCO filing which you may find
interesting. You can
reference all of them from here. http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-22-1-AmndComplaint_Story01.html
The
emphasis here is on the fact that when SCO amended its filing it
made it very clear that it knows that IBM has copyrights on the IP
which SCO claims IBM gave to the Linux community.
SCO now says that this is unacceptable because these IBM
copyrights are derivative works of UNIX and, therefore, belong to
SCO. I sure hope I can
be in court when they try to explain this to the judge and jury –
especially the NUMA part.
There
is, indeed, a distinction to be made here, between software that is
part of the operating system and middleware that is used with the
operating system. Perhaps
SCO has been watching how Microsoft does it and thinks that
everything is part of the operating system?
Mike
Angelo consulted an attorney (we all seem to be doing that these
days), who pointed out to him that the real issue will be trying to
make sense out of the welter of paper signed by IBM, AT&T, and
others over the history of the contract.
In particular, the attorney noted the existence of a “side
letter” which gave IBM the rights to software it writes extending
the UNIX code, dating back to 1985, which amended and overrode the
original agreement, giving AT&T the rights to all derivative
code. Isn’t that
interesting?
The Turner Papers
James
Turner, senior editor of LinuxWorld, stirred up a lively debate
(mainly against SCO and in support of Linux), pointing to
inconsistencies in the SCO arguments.
For example, he notes that if SCO distributed the
“tainted” Linux code, it became part of the GPL and it is no
longer possible for anyone, SCO included, to claim ownership of it.
You
can read his original article here http://www.linuxworld.com/story/33847.htm
and the article full of commentary here http://www.linuxworld.com/story/33850.htm
Gartner Gives Advice
In
the meantime, Gartner has stepped in, warning clients that they
might accrue liabilities if they start or continue Linux projects
and that they might want to consider other options and/or consult
their attorneys. Needless
to say, this won’t make Gartner popular with Linux aficionados.
Most
customers, according to vendors and systems integrators, are
unconcerned. They see
this as a squabble between IBM and SCO that will get resolved
somewhere, some day and not a threat to their IT plans.
On
the other hand, we’ll never know about the customers who just
didn’t try Linux, because this was one additional reason not to.
That’s too bad.
I’m off to
LinuxWorld, in San Francisco next week.
I’ll bet this topic will get plenty of airing – and that
SCO will have few friends there.
(back to top)
