[vox] SCO suing IBM over their Linux activity

[Mike Simons]

--0OWHXb1mYLuhj1Ox
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 02:15:07PM -0700, zeruch@damagestudios.com wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2003, Mike Simons wrote:
> > - SCO will require people getting the code next week sign a NDA,
> >   such that the code doesn't leak out more.
>=20
> more?  oh, i would love to see the terms on that NDA.

  Yes, I don't understand why... nothing I've seen has given a
reason why SCO doesn't just state which lines are allegedly stolen.

http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81709,00=
.html

SCO's CEO says buyout could end Linux fight
=3D=3D=3D
  Asked why SCO has suddenly started looking at these issues now, after
  years of declining revenues at his company and the increasing popularity
  of Linux, McBride said SCO had few options in the late 1990s as Linux
  began surfacing in the business computing world. "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?"
  [...]
  McBride said his company will open samples of its contested code to
  interested parties next week under nondisclosure agreements so SCO can
  prove its points. The open-source community, however, won't be be given
  an opportunity to remove any offending code and replace it with new
  material, he said. Instead, damages will continue to be sought.
 =20
  "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?"
=3D=3D=3D

  ... the text above strikes me as extortion.  It can not be legal for
someone to watch illegal activity go on for "years", waiting for some
rich person to come to sue.  Keeping the knowledge of what is stolen
property private so as to *create* more damages which are self=20
inflicted is bogus.


http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,81695,00=
.html

Analysts to SCO: No thanks to code review offer
=3D=3D=3D
  Analysts are balking at The SCO Group Inc.'s offer to view its proof
  that there is illegal Unix code in Linux, with one calling the move a
  publicity stunt.
  [...]
  Torvalds, in an e-mail response, said there's "no way" he can sign a
  nondisclosure agreement with SCO to review the code. "Others have asked
  and haven't gotten anything, so I don't see much point. They don't want
  to tell; they want to sue. I'm told that it will come out in discovery
  during the actual suit at some point."
  [...]
  Despite the concerns expressed by Gartner, Giga and IDC, Darl McBride,
  SCO's CEO, today said that five or six analysts have expressed interest
  in viewing the code under NDAs. He said that some "highly recognizable"
  members of the open-source community have also asked about the NDA
  process, but he would not give their names.
=3D=3D=3D

  The three firms the reported talked to were leaning against accepting
the offer for their own legal reasons and that no companies or people
being named, could mean that everyone is "asking about" the NDA but
refusing to agree to it.


> > - SCO sent a notice of breach of contract letter to IBM over their
> >   used of Unix in AIX, and intend to revoke IBM's right to use or
> >   sell AIX after 100 days.
>=20
> They're whole attack on IBM is laughable at best.

  I don't know what their contract covers with IBM, but they are quiet
serious about revoking IBM's contract and they quiet *clearly* think that
by doing so it will remove IBM's ability to sell AIX.


> > - SCO had three other parties look into their discovery of their source
> >   inside the Linux kernel, over the last few months and all of them=20
> >   came back saying SCO's claim is valid.
>=20
> I would be curious if they have identified these 3 other 'independent'=20
> parties.

  They have not mentioned any names, anyplace.


  I really do wish that the case went to trial and all this came out in
court... but we are talking about waiting *years* with this "Linux is
tainted" stigma, and I can not imagine dealing with that sort of thing.

--=20
GPG key: http://simons-clan.com/~msimons/gpg/msimons.asc
Fingerprint: 524D A726 77CB 62C9 4D56  8109 E10C 249F B7FA ACBE

--0OWHXb1mYLuhj1Ox
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE+1+fd4Qwkn7f6rL4RAtihAJ9ihpAouJwdvDZnDWo3UrFYgOo8xgCfTCyh
q/iLV9/fMGqJI02yylbDh/E=
=mBvb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0OWHXb1mYLuhj1Ox--