SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility
Summary
Topics
 | ||
| ||
| In response to Dan Farber's "Is this the end of free Linux?" Bryan Taylor writes: | |
| ||
| ||
SCO's claims have absolutely no credibility. I don't understand why journalistsare not cross-examining them and exposing them as the fraud they are.
SCO's System V copyrights do not include rights to any of the code they arediscussing: RCU, NUMA, JFS, SMP. RCU is patented by IBM. NUMA is not present inSystem V, and was independently developed by Sequent, SGI, and IBM (not SCO).SMP in Linux was originally assisted by SCO Caldera, and newer work includesfunctionality that no SCO prodcut has ever included. IBM authored JFSoriginally for OS/2, not System V.
SCO's claims against IBM are completely and utterly without merit.
You cannot have a trade secret on something that you yourself publish, whichSCO did by itself publishing Linux. Copyright does not extend to anythingbesides the elements of a work that are your own original expression. None ofthe technologies in question were developed by SCO, or purchased from Novell orAT&T.
Fact: SCO's contract with IBM excludes from confidentiality requirementsderivitive work that is "independently created" by IBM.
Proof: http://www.caldera.com/scosource/ExhibitD.qxd.pdf see 3.04(v) on page 12.
Fact: SCO's contract with IBM does not preclude IBM employees from "use" ofideas ("residual knowledge mentally retained") obtained by looking at System Vcode, so long as they are not verbatim copied.
Proof: same document section 3.06, page 12
Why aren't you writing articles asking about wrong-doing by SCO?
The only thing that is proven in this case is that SCO is running its Linuxbusiness based on piracy of the Linux kernel, which they distribute in flagrantviolation of its GPL license. Their claims that its license is defective are ofno assistance here.
Fact: SCO copied, modified, and distributed Linux kernel version 2.4
Proof: http://www.caldera.com/products/workstation/datasheet.html
Fact: SCO continues this distribution today, even after publicly asserting thatit is not properly licensed.
Proof:ftp://ftp.caldera.com/
Fact: Kernel version 2.4.19 can by explicit license terms only be licensedunder the terms of the GPL.
Proof: It is inarguable that at least some of the code distributed by SCO wasdeveloped by Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Dave Miller, et. al. who each providetheir work only under the GPL license as described in source distribution. See below for the requirements of the GPL.
Fact: SCO needs a license from each author of code it distributes or it iscommitting copyright infringement.
Proof: 17 USC 106
Fact: Section 2b of the GPL provides: "You must cause any work that youdistribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from theProgram or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to allthird parties under the terms of this License."
Proof: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Fact: Section 4 of the GPL provides: "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, ordistribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Anyattempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program isvoid, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
Proof: same as above
Fact: Section 6 of the GPL provides: "Each time you redistribute the Program(or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives alicense from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Programsubject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any furtherrestrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
Proof: same as above
Conclusion: Unless SCO has independently placed all parts of what theydistributed under the GPL, then they are violating the GPL. Furthermore, SCO's"attempt" (section 4) to deny GPL licensing terms to work they claim to haveauthored which was distributed with Linux has terminated their rights todistribute it (which they continue to do). SCO's distribution of Linux isnothing short of a business based on for-profit willful distribution ofunlicensed and therefore pirated software.
Bryan Taylor
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
