[linux-elitists] SCO shakedown to begin Monday

Karsten M. Self kmself@ix.netcom.com
Mon Jul 21 01:21:31 PDT 2003

on Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 07:14:10PM -0700, Don Marti (dmarti@zgp.org) wrote:
> Questions I probably won't get to ask on the call -- make fair use
> of any you like.
> The call info including 800 number and authorization code, is in
> a publicly available press release:
> http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030718/laf036_1.html
> Why did Opinder Bawa, your VP of Engineering and Global Servcices,
> sell all his stock and leave?
> With every Unix source licensee able to compare Unix source code
> to Linux, why have none of them seen enough similarity to want to
> settle up with SCO?
> Ian Lance Taylor, who accepted the SCO NDA to examine the allegedly
> infringing code, wrote, "Looking around the Net, I found close
> variants of the code, with the same comments and variable names, in
> sources other than Linux distributions."  Will SCO offer any evidence
> to substantiate its infringement claims, or continue to rely on short
> quotes from two analysts who are not professional C programmers?
> SCO has threatened to sue 100% of its existing SCOsource licensees
> -- both Microsoft and Sun Microsystems.  Does signing up for this
> program actually increase the likelihood of being sued by SCO?

Mine:  what code review was performed by Caldera and/or the Santa Cruz
Operation in 1999 prior to, in the course of, or subsequent to Caldera's
aquisition of SCO's Unix business at that time?  If no due-dilligence of
copyright or other software-related assets was performed, how does the
SCO group explain this?

> begin Karsten M. Self quotation of Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 11:42:21PM +0100:
> > How about educating potential extortion victims^W^WCaldera/SCO
> > customers that signing on to any such licensing program could very
> > well put them in violation of the GNU GPL, and expose them to
> > possibly GPL violation litigation.
> End users are not required to comply with the GPL -- the GPL
> only affects those who redistribute the software.  If you don't
> redistribute, you can strike whatever deal you like.



    The FSF draws a fairly tight line on what it considers to be
    non-triggering distribution.  Including, as an example, the cited
    example of an employee installing software on a personal system,
    even if for work use.

To effectively moot Caldera/SCO's offering, it's only necessary, of
course, to raise sufficient uncertainty at the value of any agreement
with the firm.

> Has anyone seen any software license, anywhere, in which any software
> provider agrees to indemnify any user against third-party copyright
> or trade secret claims?  Jumping to the conclusion that IBM is
> somehow remiss in not doing this for Linux seems to be a great
> field mark for recognizing pinhead IT commentators and analysts.

You've actually seen this point raised?

BTW, see sig.  http://sco.iwethey.oris a valuable resource that is still
hard to find via common search engines.  It needs your juice (and Don's
done more than his share). 


Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com>        http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
  Backgrounder on the Caldera/SCO vs. IBM and Linux dispute.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20030721/c897f2b7/attachment.pgp 

More information about the linux-elitists mailing list