[NCLUG] SCO (from Breaking news!...)

[Daniel Miles]

Why is it that you're so convinced that the clean-room was contaminated?

Of the two examples we've been shown so far, one is BSD code that SCO
has no rights to and the other is historical code that Caldera
released... sometime, maybe 2000? Furthermore, the historical code has
been taken out of the 2.6.x kernels because the kernel programmers
thought it was too ugly.

I got all this information from an article posted to this forum yet
we're all still solidly convinced that SCO was violated.

Has anybody considered the possibility that they're using the suit as a
ploy for something else? Is it possible that they're trying to get
bought by IBM so that their ship stops sinking?


On Sat, 2003-08-23 at 11:46, jbass at dmsd.com wrote:
> In responding to Charles post, one point makes or breaks the whole
> posting:
> 
> Charles Stevenson <core at bokeoa.com> writes:
> >> Now if anybody still strongly believes that SCO's concerns and rights
> >> in this case are completely without merit regarding derivative code
> >> rights and the state of the law regarding IP, trade secrets, and
> >> copyright I'll be happy to continue to provide references and balance
> >> to this discussion.
> 
> >I believe that your assertion regarding this issue is unfounded, until 
> >proven otherwise. It disturbs me that so many people are basing their 
> >arguments on media propaganda and hearsay.
> 
> Since you dispute this, then please back up your assertions of this
> aspect with explict references to case law showing IBM's IP technology
> transfer from UNIX to Linux without clean room issolation has been
> acceptable under existing trade secret and copyright law.
> 
> This single issue gives Caldera's case against IBM merit. The Linux
> community by backing IBM with strong attacks against Caldera/SCO,
> stands to live or die on this point of law.
> 
> My assertion in all the posts is regarding the incorrect means of
> IP transfer that I believe IBM and other UNIX shops may have been
> using.  I have gone out of my way to provide references to the law,
> and to the cases which over the last 30 years, form the basis for
> software copyright law and the requirements for clean room IP transfer.
> 
> Caldera, a long standing linux distributor, bought SCO. Caldera put
> V7 and all prior releases under BSD license for the community good.
> Caldera was a significant part of both the Linux and Open Source
> community.
> 
> IBM, a long standing company strongly rooted in proprietary IP,
> has been violating Caldera's UNIX IP rights.
> 
> The linux community made the wrong choice here ... forcing a long
> standing Linux and Open Source company to walk away from Linux and
> Open Source by those communities protection of IBM over Caldera/SCO.
> 
> John
> 
> As for responses to the rest of the post ......
> 
> > I do not believe that GNU/Linux can stand on its own two feet in the 
> > courtroom without the help of the FSF, EFF, ACLU, or even a corporate 
> > giant like IBM.
> 
> By itself, the Linux movement is hardly at any risk, except for possibly
> patent violations which in general can be avoided or negotiated. It's
> pretty easy to avoid trade secrets and copyright issues by just not taking
> code from parties that would put the movement at risk.
> 
> The real concern are corporate giants just using the linux movement as a
> shield and creating the liabilities. Which I strongly believe is the case
> here. We have setup another modern day Robinhood, where it's convient to
> turn our heads to the methods they have used to "donate" to the linux
> movement.
> 
> > Additionally, I wouldn't go so far as to say "obvious violations against 
> > SCO's rights" without having seen the evidence first-hand. What evidence 
> > gave you the confidence to pass judgement on which party is right and 
> > which is wrong? Was your assertion based upon the online FUD? Do you 
> > know something we don't?
> 
> You have obviously missed or failed to understand the significance of the
> various discussions about how to remove the question of trade secret and
> copyright infringement using clean room development environments/teams.
> 
> You obviously missed the points in the SCO court complaint asserting IBM
> failure to provide a clean room environment between the UNIX and Linux
> product teams, for all code transfered between the two.
> 
> >> Now some in this forum have asserted that SCO's position is completely
> >> without merit, and others outside our community have used this forum
> >> to slander SCO without merit and post grossly false and missleading
> >> "facts" about the merits of the case.
> >
> >I find your assumption hypocritical--as neither those in favor, opposed 
> >or indifferent to this subject, who are also members of this forum, were 
> >present at SCO's forum. Correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Being present at SCO forum is *NOT* a requirement to discuss the issues
> or merits of this case. There are multiple points in SCO's complaint
> against IBM. In the end, the clean room issue, is SCO's strongest point
> for which I strongly doubt any of the existing UNIX shops can show full
> compliance. As for lines of code representing proof, SCO lawyers and the
> new Caldera management have been idiots in not making beter choices. One
> would certainly think the three independent teams (including MIT) could
> do a better job of protecting their own reputations.
> 
> > Underdog or not, a corporation is a corporation.
> 
> NO! A corporation is NOT a corporation. There are personal liability
> corporations that are necessary legal shields for an individual or
> family. There are privately held corporations to protect a small group
> of individuals or employees which actively run their small business,
> some of which like SCO may have done an IPO to raise capital that is
> difficult to get from just a bank without hard collateral.
> 
> And there are the IBM's of the world, owned and managed by Wall Street.
> 
> I do not know the new Caldera management that aquired SCO, but I strongly
> get the impression that they are not a Wall Street lackey.
> 
> > Is SCO really the victim here?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > Remember, this corporation's last dying move, rather than 
> > drumming up funding and support in order to come out with a new product 
> > , was to try and weasel some money out of what remains of their IP.
> 
> That is not an excuse for IBM's actions.  SCO's UNIX revenue might well
> trickle down to a much smaller value over time ... and the company might
> shrink in size while it finds other markets, products, and services to
> offer. I have said before, that SCO has a lot of interesting IP besides
> the original UNIX product it purchased from Novel, particularly in the
> performance and integration they offer on Intel for niche point of sale
> and corporate markets.
> 
> > At least IBM is a corporation that has products and customers.
> 
> So does SCO.
> 
> > IBM has survived many trends in computing and I dare say this little thorn in 
> > their side we call SCO is not going to detract them from their destiny.
> 
> Sure, but let's make sure they don't continue to take development
> short cuts which violate clean room standards in transfering IP from
> UNIX to Linux.
> 
> > Do we really want SCO's help? SCO's lawsuit, threats and claims can 
> > hardly be seen as anything other than a direct attack upon the Open 
> > Source Community and its benefactors.
> 
> Just how is SCO's lawsuit and claims a direct attack on the Open Source
> Community? Heck as far as I've seen 99.99% of the open source community
> wants to do this right. We have however "benefactors" like IBM that have
> shown a disregard in how to transfer UNIX derivative IP into Linux by
> clearly established correct means.
> 
> Read back regarding who started the abuse in this ... Did not the
> linux community in force take aim at Caldera/SCO when the initial
> actions against IBM were filed? The lawsuit was against IBM for
> their poor practices, the Linux community failed to step back and
> let IBM defend it's own questionable actions. 
> 
> > > I *AM* a Linux supporter, but I also strongly believe in being fair,
> > > honest, and moral ... with the belief that we all should try hard to
> > > "just do the right thing". IBM is not doing the right thing here, and
> > > the dollars they expect will ultimately come out of our pockets. DITTO
> > > for a half dozen other major corporate Linux kernel contributors.
> 
> > Is this really an issue of right and wrong--good vs evil?
> 
> yes .... many Linux supporters think so as well, but have failed to
> step back are really examine which side they should be on.
> 
> The suduction that IBM is a better partner long term over Caldera
> doesn't justify the failure of adherance to accepted IP transfer
> practice.
> _______________________________________________
> NCLUG mailing list       NCLUG at nclug.org
> 
> To unsubscribe, subscribe, or modify your settings, go to:
> http://www.nclug.org/mailman/listinfo/nclug