[NCLUG] Organizing against SCO?

Sean Reifschneider jafo at tummy.com
Wed Jul 23 17:01:18 MDT 2003


On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:10:43PM -0600, jbass at dmsd.com wrote:
>SCO has shown that both have occured, not just one. Either gives SCO the

I think it's a little early to say that SCO has shown that both have
occured, as the court case is way in the early stages.  I think what
you're trying to say is that "SCO intends to show that both have
happened".

It seems awfully early for them to be saying that people need to purchase
UnixWare licenses to "legitimize" the use of Linux.  Particularly as SCO
was shipping product based on the 2.4 kernel.

I can see how SCO would be sueing someone who leaked SCO-owned source
into Linux.  I don't see how that means that Linux users need to start
buying UnixWare licenses.  If SCO were to tell Linux folks exactly what
parts of the kernel SCO is contending, then we can examine them, remove
the appropriate parts, and continue on our merry way.

SCO doesn't seem to be doing that though.  I'm forced to wonder why...
If they are truely concerned that their IP is being shipped in Linux
without appropriate licensing, why don't they want it removed?

One of their more specific claims seems to just be false.  The RCU IP
seems to be owned by IBM, and Linus has said that he was very careful
about adding the RCU code from IBM.

Another specific case they have quoted is JFS, but the JFS that is in
Linux came not from AIX, but actually from OS/2.  So, it's hard to
understand how Linux is tainted where they aren't seeming to claim that
OS/2 is.

I'm unclear on the SMP issues -- I first started using SMP with Linux
back in 1996 on a dual Pentium 133.  That was well before the 2.4
timeframe, so just exactly what parts of SMP are they claiming?

To me it seems like they aren't making specific claims, publicly,
because they know that they'll be easily squashed by the public.  I
can't imagine why, if they have such damaging evidence, that they aren't
making it publicly available.

Again, I'm all for SCO getting damages if IBM put some SCO IP into Linux
improperly.  I'm entirely against SCO making these vague claims and
then trying to extort money from Linux users under the guise of making
their use of Linux more "legitimate".

SCO does not have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded world.

>	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.

The conclusion that he seems to have is that even with an NDA, SCO
showed him an example of "direct copying" which was questionable at
best.  If that's their best example, it seems to me like they don't
really have a case.  Other examples that SCO quoted sound quite
questionable as well.  For example, I can just imagine that their
"obfuscated code" is actually a simple algorithm that was independantly
implemented in both.

Without them telling us, we have no way to know if their claims are at
all legitimate.  That makes their asking for people to buy UnixWare
licenses seem rather unfair.  Ditto for their sending 1500 letters to
Linux businesses trying to scare them.

In fact, according to the article you mention above, SCO has said that
they don't want Linux developers to remove the code they claim.  On the
one hand I can understand how they might have some concerns about how
that may have tainted the Linux kernel, and it may be difficult to
repair that.  However, their preventing the Linux community from
removing the code in question makes the SCO claims that they "aren't
against Linux" seem at least a bit disingenuous.

Sean
-- 
 Sure I like country music, and I like violins.
 But right now I need a telecaster through a vibrolux turned up to ten.
Sean Reifschneider, Member of Technical Staff <jafo at tummy.com>
tummy.com, ltd. - Linux Consulting since 1995.  Qmail, Python, SysAdmin



More information about the NCLUG mailing list