Linux Vendors Reject SCO's Legal Claims -- COMPUTERWORLD.COM

Linux Vendors Reject SCO's Legal Claims -- COMPUTERWORLD.COM

Post by Daero » Mon, 26 May 2003 17:49:48



http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81325,...
LINUX VENDORS REJECT SCO'S LEGAL CLAIMS
TODD R. WEISS  --  MAY 19 2003
-
Raleigh, N.C.-based Red Hat Inc., the U.S. Linux market leader, said in
a statement that it has "put a lot of time and effort into making sure
we're not in violation of valid trademarks and intellectual property. We
have yet to see any code identified that's in question."
-
Similarly, a spokesman for SuSE Linux AG in Nuremberg, Germany, said in
a statement, "We are not aware, nor has SCO made any attempt to make us
aware, of any specific unauthorized code in any SuSE Linux product."
-
Hewlett-Packard Co., like IBM a major vendor of Linux-based hardware,
acknowledged that it received a letter from SCO last week warning of the
potential for legal action. But HP said it "is unaware of any
intellectual property infringement within Linux."
-
SCO is "basically rattling their sabers," said Al Gillen, an analyst at
market research firm IDC in Framingham, Mass. One all-but-certain
outcome, he added, is that SCO will be ostracized by Linux advocates. "I
don't think the community will accept The SCO Group as a participant in
the community anymore in any way, shape or form at this point," Gillen
said.
-------
 
 
 

Linux Vendors Reject SCO's Legal Claims -- COMPUTERWORLD.COM

Post by Dave Leig » Tue, 27 May 2003 04:03:11


Daeron wrote on Sunday 25 May 2003 10:49 in message

http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81325,...

Quote:> LINUX VENDORS REJECT SCO'S LEGAL CLAIMS
> TODD R. WEISS  --  MAY 19 2003
> -
> Raleigh, N.C.-based Red Hat Inc., the U.S. Linux market leader, said in
> a statement that it has "put a lot of time and effort into making sure
> we're not in violation of valid trademarks and intellectual property. We
> have yet to see any code identified that's in question."

There is an irony in this case that needs to be pointed out. The only way
to ensure the protection of your intellectual property is to disclose it.
Publishing is the surest way to ensure that others know what is and isn't
your code.

Copyright EXISTS to promote publication and sharing of information.
According to Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution,
Congress shall have the power: "to promote the Progress of Science and
useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

You do not need secrecy to do that. Secrecy is counter to the very nature
and purpose of copyright. The work of most authors is FULLY disclosed on
publication by the very nature of publication itself, closed source
software being an exception to the rule.

Furthermore, secrecy makes it far more difficult to establish your own
ownership of a work, and may limit your damages due to the fact that you
yourself have made attribution impossible. As we see in the above quote
from Red Hat (and other statements by IBM, SuSE, and HP), secrecy
undermines the honest efforts of those who create collective works and who
wish to respect your rights. Unless others can see your work, then there is
NO POSSIBLE WAY that any reasonable research on their part can reveal the
fact of your ownership.

If the purpose of SCO's secrecy is not to protect their copyrighted work,
but to protect algorithms and techniques that they regard as "trade
secrets" then secrecy is counterproductive to protecting this information
as well. As it stands, the USPTO issues software patents (and personal
feelings about software patents are beside the point. They're issued. Live
with it). If SCO felt that their techniques were of such value as to be
damaging should others use them, then they could have patented them. Of
course, to be issued a patent you must fully disclose how your invention
works. Without the patent, techniques may be used freely by all without
obligation to the inventor. The requirement for disclosure covers all of  
points I've raised above: publication establishes your ownership; a full
description allows others to do a patent search to avoid infringement; and
the limited timespan allows the eventual sharing by all. PATENTS, LIKE
COPYRIGHTS, are designed to promote the sharing of information in the
interests of the public good.

OTOH, SCO's actions reveal that their intent is contrary to the public
good. No matter how you look at it, they have no valid grounds for
witholding proof of their allegations.

What they are doing is building UNIX's coffin. SCO, nee Caldera, own the
UNIX IP; fine. They are also proving themselves to be a loose cannon whose
business associations will suffer enormously from their own actions. IBM
took what are proving to be prophetic steps when they decided to embrace
Linux. In doing so they are divesting themselves of an onerous leash.
Others have followed to varying degrees, but I'd be willing to bet that
Linux will be THE promotional path of most UNIX vendors in the future. For
most of the time I've been in this business I've heard editorial
predictions that UNIX is dead. This is the first time I've been inclined to
join them. SCO has issued a fatal wound, and though the actual end will
take time...

...UNIX is dead. Long Live LINUX.

--
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst
Cratchit.org

 
 
 

Linux Vendors Reject SCO's Legal Claims -- COMPUTERWORLD.COM

Post by Sundial Service » Tue, 27 May 2003 04:18:25



> Daeron wrote on Sunday 25 May 2003 10:49 in message


http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81325,...

Quote:>> LINUX VENDORS REJECT SCO'S LEGAL CLAIMS
>> TODD R. WEISS  --  MAY 19 2003
>> -
>> Raleigh, N.C.-based Red Hat Inc., the U.S. Linux market leader, said in
>> a statement that it has "put a lot of time and effort into making sure
>> we're not in violation of valid trademarks and intellectual property. We
>> have yet to see any code identified that's in question."

> There is an irony in this case that needs to be pointed out. The only way
> to ensure the protection of your intellectual property is to disclose it.
> Publishing is the surest way to ensure that others know what is and isn't
> your code.

> Copyright EXISTS to promote publication and sharing of information.
> According to Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution,
> Congress shall have the power: "to promote the Progress of Science and
> useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the
> exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

> You do not need secrecy to do that. Secrecy is counter to the very nature
> and purpose of copyright. The work of most authors is FULLY disclosed on
> publication by the very nature of publication itself, closed source
> software being an exception to the rule.

> Furthermore, secrecy makes it far more difficult to establish your own
> ownership of a work, and may limit your damages due to the fact that you
> yourself have made attribution impossible. As we see in the above quote
> from Red Hat (and other statements by IBM, SuSE, and HP), secrecy
> undermines the honest efforts of those who create collective works and who
> wish to respect your rights. Unless others can see your work, then there
> is NO POSSIBLE WAY that any reasonable research on their part can reveal
> the fact of your ownership.

> If the purpose of SCO's secrecy is not to protect their copyrighted work,
> but to protect algorithms and techniques that they regard as "trade
> secrets" then secrecy is counterproductive to protecting this information
> as well. As it stands, the USPTO issues software patents (and personal
> feelings about software patents are beside the point. They're issued. Live
> with it). If SCO felt that their techniques were of such value as to be
> damaging should others use them, then they could have patented them. Of
> course, to be issued a patent you must fully disclose how your invention
> works. Without the patent, techniques may be used freely by all without
> obligation to the inventor. The requirement for disclosure covers all of
> points I've raised above: publication establishes your ownership; a full
> description allows others to do a patent search to avoid infringement; and
> the limited timespan allows the eventual sharing by all. PATENTS, LIKE
> COPYRIGHTS, are designed to promote the sharing of information in the
> interests of the public good.

> OTOH, SCO's actions reveal that their intent is contrary to the public
> good. No matter how you look at it, they have no valid grounds for
> witholding proof of their allegations.

> What they are doing is building UNIX's coffin. SCO, nee Caldera, own the
> UNIX IP; fine. They are also proving themselves to be a loose cannon whose
> business associations will suffer enormously from their own actions. IBM
> took what are proving to be prophetic steps when they decided to embrace
> Linux. In doing so they are divesting themselves of an onerous leash.
> Others have followed to varying degrees, but I'd be willing to bet that
> Linux will be THE promotional path of most UNIX vendors in the future. For
> most of the time I've been in this business I've heard editorial
> predictions that UNIX is dead. This is the first time I've been inclined
> to join them. SCO has issued a fatal wound, and though the actual end will
> take time...

I certainly agree that SCO is dead.  Stone, cold, dead meat.  
 
 
 

Linux Vendors Reject SCO's Legal Claims -- COMPUTERWORLD.COM

Post by Opus » Tue, 27 May 2003 06:48:19



> Daeron wrote on Sunday 25 May 2003 10:49 in message

> http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81325,...
>> LINUX VENDORS REJECT SCO'S LEGAL CLAIMS
>> TODD R. WEISS  --  MAY 19 2003
>> -
>> Raleigh, N.C.-based Red Hat Inc., the U.S. Linux market leader, said in
>> a statement that it has "put a lot of time and effort into making sure
>> we're not in violation of valid trademarks and intellectual property. We
>> have yet to see any code identified that's in question."

> There is an irony in this case that needs to be pointed out. The only way
> to ensure the protection of your intellectual property is to disclose it.
> Publishing is the surest way to ensure that others know what is and isn't
> your code.

> Copyright EXISTS to promote publication and sharing of information.
> According to Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution,
> Congress shall have the power: "to promote the Progress of Science and
> useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the
> exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

> You do not need secrecy to do that. Secrecy is counter to the very nature
> and purpose of copyright. The work of most authors is FULLY disclosed on
> publication by the very nature of publication itself, closed source
> software being an exception to the rule.

> Furthermore, secrecy makes it far more difficult to establish your own
> ownership of a work, and may limit your damages due to the fact that you
> yourself have made attribution impossible. As we see in the above quote
> from Red Hat (and other statements by IBM, SuSE, and HP), secrecy
> undermines the honest efforts of those who create collective works and who
> wish to respect your rights. Unless others can see your work, then there is
> NO POSSIBLE WAY that any reasonable research on their part can reveal the
> fact of your ownership.

> If the purpose of SCO's secrecy is not to protect their copyrighted work,
> but to protect algorithms and techniques that they regard as "trade
> secrets" then secrecy is counterproductive to protecting this information
> as well. As it stands, the USPTO issues software patents (and personal
> feelings about software patents are beside the point. They're issued. Live
> with it). If SCO felt that their techniques were of such value as to be
> damaging should others use them, then they could have patented them. Of
> course, to be issued a patent you must fully disclose how your invention
> works. Without the patent, techniques may be used freely by all without
> obligation to the inventor. The requirement for disclosure covers all of  
> points I've raised above: publication establishes your ownership; a full
> description allows others to do a patent search to avoid infringement; and
> the limited timespan allows the eventual sharing by all. PATENTS, LIKE
> COPYRIGHTS, are designed to promote the sharing of information in the
> interests of the public good.

> OTOH, SCO's actions reveal that their intent is contrary to the public
> good. No matter how you look at it, they have no valid grounds for
> witholding proof of their allegations.

> What they are doing is building UNIX's coffin. SCO, nee Caldera, own the
> UNIX IP; fine. They are also proving themselves to be a loose cannon whose
> business associations will suffer enormously from their own actions. IBM
> took what are proving to be prophetic steps when they decided to embrace
> Linux. In doing so they are divesting themselves of an onerous leash.
> Others have followed to varying degrees, but I'd be willing to bet that
> Linux will be THE promotional path of most UNIX vendors in the future. For
> most of the time I've been in this business I've heard editorial
> predictions that UNIX is dead. This is the first time I've been inclined to
> join them. SCO has issued a fatal wound, and though the actual end will
> take time...

> ...UNIX is dead. Long Live LINUX.

I thought you understood what a copyright meant.  

Look!  You can actually write your own TCP-IP stack and if the source code
is, line for line, exactly the same as someone elses your not in violation
of copyright laws if the work is your own.  Copyright law only applies to
source code which is a derivitave of some other work!   This includes
reverse engineering.

Patented processes are another discussion.

And as far as your comment about commercial unix being dead,,,,  how
silly.  There isn't a linux yet to replace HP-UX nor AIX nor a half a dozen
others.  While it's possible in the future, it isn't here yet.

Under current copyright law, secrecy is the only thing which could be used
to protect your copyright.  It's nothing like a patent where a process is
filed with a government body and approved.  There is no central repository
for copyrighted software code unlike print for which there is a library.

 
 
 

Linux Vendors Reject SCO's Legal Claims -- COMPUTERWORLD.COM

Post by Dave Leig » Tue, 27 May 2003 09:54:18


Opus wrote on Sunday 25 May 2003 23:48 in message

...

Quote:> I thought you understood what a copyright meant.

Certainly. As for your own understanding, if it doesn't match the following
it's wrong:

Quote:>> According to Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the US Constitution,
>> Congress shall have the power: "to promote the Progress of Science and
>> useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the
>> exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
> Look!  You can actually write your own TCP-IP stack and if the source code
> is, line for line, exactly the same as someone elses your not in violation
> of copyright laws if the work is your own.  Copyright law only applies to
> source code which is a derivitave of some other work!   This includes
> reverse engineering.

Quite correct, which is one illustration of why secrecy dimishes the
protections afforded you as a copyright holder. Line-for-line duplication
is difficult to claim as coincidence if the work in question was previously
disclosed. However, if you keep your work secret then you simply give
credence to any argument that the other work could not be derivative
because ITS author had no access to your work. Though it's unlikely that a
work of significant length would match line for line, when it comes to
utility routines and the like you're still better off publishing than not.

Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that unpublished works aren't covered
(they are); Nor that you /must/ disclose source code to register a software
work (you don't). I'm saying that you gain no protection under the law that
you would not have if you fully disclosed your work; and that it's more
difficult to prove your case or gain damages if you waltz in long after
you've known it to be on the market and claim to have written it in secret.

Quote:> Patented processes are another discussion.

> And as far as your comment about commercial unix being dead,,,,  how
> silly.  There isn't a linux yet to replace HP-UX nor AIX nor a half a
> dozen
> others.  While it's possible in the future, it isn't here yet.

That's why I prefaced the statement with this:

Quote:>> SCO has issued a fatal wound, and though the actual end will
>> take time...

I agree that it will take time for Linux to replace high-end Unices. I
believe that the /amount/ of time it will take has been significantly
shortened by SCO. I predict that Unix vendors will increase their Linux
efforts in order to hasten their move away from those loony litigators.

Quote:> Under current copyright law, secrecy is the only thing which could be used
> to protect your copyright.  It's nothing like a patent where a process is
> filed with a government body and approved.  There is no central repository
> for copyrighted software code unlike print for which there is a library.

That's simply wrong. First of all, with no more than a moment's thought
you'd realize that the books in the library are no less protected by
copyright than SCO's code even though every letter of every book is open to
your unrestricted inspection. This utterly refutes your claim re: secrecy.
As for a central repository, it's the SAME ONE. Look here:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/ To register software with the US Copyright
office you simply provide them with the work, either as a source code
listing or on CD-ROM, along with $30 and an application.

--
Dave Leigh, Consulting Systems Analyst
Cratchit.org

 
 
 

Linux Vendors Reject SCO's Legal Claims -- COMPUTERWORLD.COM

Post by Drazen Gemi » Tue, 27 May 2003 13:23:06


Quote:> I certainly agree that SCO is dead.  Stone, cold, dead meat.  

Yes, but damage is already done. The trial is going to drag for years.....

http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2003/0523gartntous2.html

They are not predicting anything, just warning the customers.
That is not good at all.

                                         DG

 
 
 

1. buy us out says SCO's CEO to IBM COMPUTERWORLD.com

http://tinyurl.com/d4nb
SCO's CEO says buyout could end Linux fight
His comments came in response to an analyst's proposed scenario
TODD R. WEISS  MAY 30 2003

"If there's a way of resolving this that is positive, then we can get
back out to business and everybody is good to go, then I'm fine with
that," McBride said today in an interview with Computerworld. "If that's
one of the outcomes of this, then so be it."
---

"I'm not trying to screw up the Linux business," he said. "I'm trying to
take care of the shareholders, employees and people who have been having
their rights trampled on."
---

  "Even if you potentially had a problem [with concerns about Unix code
in Linux back then], what are you going to do?" McBride asked. "Sue
Linus Torvalds? And get what?"
---

"The notion that we're going to sit back and let the Linux steamroller
go over us at our expense, at the shareholders' expense, makes zero
sense to me."
---

"It's sort of like somebody stealing your car, and you hunt them down
and you find them, and they say you can have your car back, but there's
no penalty for that," McBride said. "If there's no penalty for stealing
property, then where are we?"

---

June "will be show-and-tell time," McBride said. "We're not going to
show two lines of code. We're going to show hundreds of lines of code"
that allegedly violate SCO's intellectual property.
-------

http://computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81709,...
---

2. ncftpd - to put info in messages ?

3. SCO's NDA offer a PR stunt COMPUTERWORLD.com

4. g++ Inlcude files not being found correctly.

5. Microsoft 'battles' spam [ not ] -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

6. Ipchains & Port Forward

7. questionable motives of Microsoft SCO deal -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

8. No SAM or SMIT

9. SCO intends to produce evidence COMPUTERWORLD.com

10. desperate act of a has-been company, SCO -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

11. Novell may challenge SCO Linux claims -- NEWS.COM.com

12. Linux is on fire -- COMPUTERWORLD.com

13. SCO claims IP rights on derivative code, news.Com.com