[NCLUG] Organizing against SCO?

[jbass at dmsd.com]

Someone wrote:
>Did you even *look* at http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html, John?

yes. Have you done your homework?

For the benifit of the opensource community that document makes some
serious misrepresentations, as well, including some serious omissions.
Since it has taken serious liberties with the truth, it's hardly
suitable defense for any position.

Take for example the contrived case regarding the market position of
SCO's UNIX IP, which fails to include the shipments of three dozen UNIX
vendors which ship licensed genetic UNIX, all of which are a significant
revenue stream for SCO. By failing in this document to include all
variants of genetic UNIX which are subject to license royalties, the
paper grossly understates SCO's financial stake in the market for the
IP that it is attempting protect.

There are other equally gross ommissions and contrived supporting arguments,
which the authors used to prop up their case, but are in fact false,
seriously damning the conclusions based on them. Anyone reading this
alone, without researching the rest of the facts, and accepts their
position without understanding the otherside of the presented issues,
has in fact, fallen for well dressed OSI propaganda.

Under IP law SCO has grounds for suit if either of it's two complaints
are true:

	1) IBM staff failed to use mandated clean room reverse engineering
	practices, and/or

	2) Code verbatium is copied from one base to the infringing work.

SCO has shown that both have occured, not just one. Either gives SCO the
right to pursue the case. So those dismissing SCO's IP rights in this case
are the ones making false and damaging statements.

SCO had to demonstrate plausable evidence for both to assert them in this
case, or the case would have been dismissed rather than proceeding into
discovery. If you have doubts about that, then at minimum read the paper
I quoted earlier:

	http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6956&mode=thread&order=0

who while stumbling badly in his paper over the precise requirements of
the law, does present first hand knowledge of some of SCO's claims regarding
1 & 2 above.


John