An agreement with SCO Group protects Linux seller SuSE from legal action stemming from SCO’s accusation that Unix software was copied into Linux, SuSE said. “We have a joint development agreement with them, which includes appropriate cross-licensing arrangements,” said SuSE spokesman Joe Eckert on Friday. “Our lawyers feel that covers us from any actions that SCO may take.“
SuSE: SCO Poses No Legal Threat
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
It’s not “okay” that some companies are protected from SCO, what SCO is doing shouldn’t be happening at all.
So if Suse has the OK to use the IP and they integrate it into the GPL’d kernel or other GPL’d software, which license do we go by?
Holly crap this is getting worse. I hope Suse doesn’t sell out and side with SCO, they could do real damage.
Should Suse’s programmers be banned from CVS access to projects now?
Something else is worrying me by what has been said.. it’s like SuSE admits they put that stuff in their distro/kernel, and justify it by their agreement with SCO.
The guy on the #2 comment HAS got a point, and this could cause big damage if SuSE was to side with SCO.
Being a big open mess was Linux’s biggest strenght. It’s now, slowly, becoming it’s very worst enemy.
From what I see is that SuSE says that they have an agreement from before the blow-up. In reality this agreement may or may not protect SuSE. This agreement may in fact protect all Linux if it protects SuSE. If indeed SCO agreed to release the code that SuSE and SCO are using to a GPL Linux then we may well consider all such code GPLed. As I understand this SCO signed a cross license agreement with the other partners of United Linux, The only reason I can see for a major Linux player like SuSE making such a agreement with a Second team Linux player like SCO is that SCO offered the rights to use its Unix code. This is further supported by the fact that SCO sent 15 programmers to work for SuSE as part of the agreement. Not that SCO has some pristine code here anyway.
The AT&T Unix has passed through so many hands, has been a part of so many licensing agreements and been worked on by so many people that no one can show that any form of intellectual property made it through to SCO exclusively,
If SCO’s claims pan out, i am jumping ship to FreeBSD. I sincerely hope they do not, but i think the point “Linux has become its own worse enemy” has some merrit.
If indeed SCO agreed to release the code that SuSE and SCO are using to a GPL Linux then we may well consider all such code GPLed.
Could SCO possibly use this as a means of getting the GPL thrown out alltogether? I.E., because a company could have their ip rights taken from them because they “accidentally” allowed thier code to be distributed under the GPL, could the GPL then be seen as invalid/dangerous/illegal?
If SuSE GPLed the code they got from SCO, then SCO must have licensed them to do so. If SuSE did GPL it, then it means the code is Free and that’s it. End to the problem. Solution for all.
If the code was licensed to suse that doesn’t make it gpl automatically. If they used it and distributed it as gpl code it would be a violation of the licensing (most likely anyway). If thats the case Suse could claim it distributed it, but not as part of the gpl. Basically it still boils down to if sco is right at parts of the code were used in linux they can pretty much sue everybody. Suse and other members of united linux might be safe as long as they can explain away any distribution of the code as not making it gpl. They would simply be the only other linux distros that could use the “stolen” code legally. In hindsight if sco is right and wins the suite suse and the other members of united linux made an incredibly lucky decision in joining UL. Of course if sco loses the correctness of that move is still up for debate.
This all goes back to the inequity of the gpl when it comes to creating viable commercial code. And it’ll feed into the anti-gpl arguments that help keep linux down.
Could SCO possibly use this as a means of getting the GPL thrown out alltogether? I.E., because a company could have their ip rights taken from them because they “accidentally” allowed thier code to be distributed under the GPL, could the GPL then be seen as invalid/dangerous/illegal?
In short, no. Why? There are thousands of programs distributed under the GPL that have nothing to do with the structure and function of Unix. What kind of IP claim would SCO have on say, Gnometris? Absolutely none.
There are several things I’ve observed here:
1. “Fleeing” to *BSD won’t fix the problem. SCO’s nebulous claim is that all free Unix-like systems violate their IP. Of course, there’s this little legal principle about how if an issue has been litigated before and resolved, it cannot be litigated again. Unix-like systems based on BSD4.4, while they contain some SysV compatibility code, are covered under the previous lawsuit over BSD from the early 90’s. SCO would be entirely foolish to try it again, but their case as they’ve laid it out depends upon it. The only one I see that could be halfway safe is OSX, which is not Unix-like.
2. They’re waffling back and forth. Either the kernel contains violating code or it doesn’t. That’s not laid out in the complaint, and therefore, cannot be brought up in court. So….where is it? In BSDmainutils? They’re not saying.
3. SuSE doesn’t have any money to go after. They hammer SuSE and they don’t get any control of anything they don’t already have through the UnitedLinux agreements.
Bottom line? SCO is going to lose, and lose badly. IIRC, the date is June 1st, when SCO has threatened to revoke IBM’s Unix license. When that happens, this will get into court very quickly, and probably be dismissed on summary judgment.
Calling sco a second tier distro was a bit of a cheap shot. When they were caldera they had my favorite distro. I haven’t tried their newest release, but if its as good as their last 2 releases as caldera I may’ve found my new linux.
Here is an interesting document (refered to as Exhibit B by SCO):
http://www.caldera.com/scosource/ExhibitB.qxd.pdf
Section 2.07 states:
If a DISTRIBUTOR fails to fulfill one or more of its obligations under the agreement required by Section 2.03, AT&T may, upon its election and in addition to any other remedies that it may have, at any time notify LICENSEE in writing of such breach and require LICENSEE to terminate all the rights granted in such agreement by not less than two (2) months’ written notice to such DISTRIBUTOR specifying any such breach, unless within the period of such notice all breaches specified therein shall have been remedied; upon such termination such DISTRIBUTOR shall within thirty (30) days immediately discontinue use of and return or destroy all copies of SUBLICENSED PRODUCTS in its possession.
As I follow this document SCO would need to provide IBM with a 2 month notice in writing before they could file suit, and further they would need to specify what breaches IBM made. I still don’t think SCO has any legitamate claims. IANAL, but I think SCO has made a <u>BIG</u> mistake!!
What do you think?
SeanParsons
What about what SCO is doing is patently “wrong”? If Linux developers used SCO’s source code line by line without permission then SCO should be able to stop that just as Linux developers should be able to stop their code from being used in propritary programmes. If SCO can’t stop Linux developers from using their code, how can one stop Microsoft from using GPLed code?
The code in question that SuSE uses may not have been contributed by SCO to any project. SCO seems to be indicating that the code was used without their knowledge until now and that they just realised that some developer cunt and pasted code that they owned into parts of Linux. In this case, SuSE would have no more right to the code than anyone else.
Also, just because someone GPLs code doesn’t mean that they have the right to. If I get a copy of the WinXP source and declare it GPL, it doesn’t mean that it is GPL software nor that I have the right to declare it so.
This case rests on a few things. First, SCO must prove that portions of the Linux source are taken from their property. Second, they must prove that someone, other than themselves, integrated it into the Linux code. Third, SCO must prove that they have never licenced that code in a way that would allow a third party to integrate it into Linux.
Their agreement with SuSE would only cover parts that SCO knew they were giving to the joint venture and is exclusive so the exclusivity would seem to make it in violation of the GPL anyway. This is why SuSE (or IBM) really can’t side with SCO. If they do any pay them off, they would still be left with the fact that they couldn’t use the code with GPLed code since SCO would only want people who they settled with to be able to use it while the GPL requiries everyone to have access to it.
Realistically, people are being a bit stupid on this one. We haven’t even seen what SCO is contesting. It could be code that is easy to replace with “no chance of being SCO code” code. At the same time, their claims may be completely baseless and made up by managers who see something alike which is actually completely different and that any one with any programming skills can easily discern as different. At the same time, there are a lot of people that simply think that SCO is wrong to try to enforce their IP on free software. Frankly, if SCO has a very solid claim against Linux and they can’t win, then Microsoft will take anything they want from Linux since there would be no reason not to.
Well, we’ll see if anyone didn’t read the entire post by the flame trail they leave behind. I’m not tring to be contravercial, but people need to wait a bit before they condem SCO or Linux. Linux may be totally in the clear or SCO may have its number. We don’t have any facts on this case other than the jockying for positioning between IBM, SCO and SuSE – it’s amazing how much non-evidence has come out: they’re wrong because we own “stuff”, they’re wrong because we licenced “stuff”; talk about specific arguments. SCO hasn’t released what they think is in violation (because they believe Linux people will “launder the code”) yet. Until then, we are left to wonder if someone stole SCO’s code or if SCO is simply acting out its death scene.
SCO is fighting an uphill battle against many large companies and an intelligent community that won’t go softly into that good night. Unless their claims are valid, they will be laughed out of the courthouse when they present their evidence.
Something that I’d like a second opinion on: Why do you think that SCO originally cleared the Linux kernel (http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-10_Story03.html), but then made accusations against it (“We’re finding…cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel that is matching up to our UnixWare code.” @ http://news.com.com/2100-1016-999371.html)? It would seem that SCO found no problem with the Linux kernel (which is really the only thing that Linux is – the rest is GNU), but then changed their minds.
I bet SCO is pissed about all the GPL coders who kept copying
int i;
for(i = 0; i < MAX_LENGTH; i++)
…;
Everyone knows kernighan and ritchie patened that in like the 30’s
“Should Suse’s programmers be banned from CVS access to projects now?”
You see, my friend, all you need to know about it is already explained by your-very-self in the head-line…
SCO is the proverbial skunk at the garden party. SCO has made accusations they have yet to provide evidence for. That won’t even pass the Yahoo BB test. The notion that SCO can’t tell us what code their talking about is silly. They presumely have a copy in their possession already, how could it be laundered.
I think SCO just need a single case against a Linux vendor to be taken to court, so that in the proceedings their position can be made absolutely clear. It will not matter how small the infraction is, as long as a settlement is made.
Until they manage to do this, and manage to argue their case, the threat will remain nebulous. When they do, however, it will pave the way for larger claims against the bigger vendors.
Sean,
I agree with all of your comments, but to better explain my strong anti-SCO stance is that they haven’t provided us with any facts (the fear of us “laundering” Linux code is ridiculous), and they’ve offered up conflicting reports of where the offending code is located (as noted by the two articles you listed). That along with my understanding from one of the AT&T/IBM contracts that I listed in a previous comment, they should be required to tell IBM what the stolen code is. Since IBM has become such a strong OSS community member, I would be surprised if they were with holding that type of information from us. Another major issue I have is that SCO should be protecting their UNIX code proactively. Things like Linux, where they have ready access to the source code, they should periodically be taking the time to run diff file1 file2. This would have let them know early on about any code that had been exactly duplicated.
If SCO proves that proprietary code has been inserted in Linux I will want that code purged immediately, but I don’t expect that to be the case. I think this is, as you eluded, SCO acting out their final death scene.
What about what SCO is doing is patently “wrong”?
Being dishonest.
Now if significant SCO Unixware code was copied into Linux, then SCO would have a valid beef. However, SCO has said and done things that make its claims not very credible.
For example, their court brief was full of errors and misleading ambiguities, many of which ESR pointed out in his own amicus brief.
Further, the original SCO brief did not even allege that actual code made its way into Linux, which make hardly any sense since 1) SCO had ready access to both its own code and Linux’s, and 2) concrete examples of code copying would have strengthened its case.
SCO defended not revealing what Linux kernel code infringed on SCO’s copyright on the ridiculous grounds that if they did so, then all the Linux kernel code everywhere would be “sanitized” of the SCO code before such evidence could be brought to court, which is practically impossible. This suggests that either SCO either is truly clueless, or that there might be other, possibly more embarassing reasons for not getting more specific.
In short, SCO has done enough dancing around that it is more probable that SCO is guilty of slander than the Linux developers are guilty of infringement.
who cares about suse, i hope they get crushed along with sco by ibm…
> who cares about suse, i hope they get crushed along with sco by ibm…
Some more flaimbait from luckett, yawn….
SuSE were one of the first companies to crucify SCO. Why all this anti-SuSE propaganda? SuSE is the (2nd?) most succesful company who sell linux products exclusively. Their position of referring to their SCO contracts is easily understandable. If they were to ignore them, their customers wouldn’t be as confident in buying their products.
I believe that if/when IBM succeed in putting the last nail in SCOs coffin, RedHat will want to brag about their relationship with IBM (and they have every right to).
I’m not familiar with law, but I’m gonna try and answer some of this through logic, mostly for my own happiness. Maybe someone already has… I’m not sure, I didn’t read all the comments.
I would think that SCO is attacking IBM, SuSE, and RedHat on ground that they can’t directly attack Linux. Since Linux is open source and anyone can contribute the blame for stolen IP can never really fall on Linux but only the person who “stole” it and put it there. Providing Linux kernel developers with a hunk of code or IP from Unix or anything else for that matter is where the crime falls.
As an example… say someone stole some IP from the crazy person who developed the pot and strainer ine one, and he publishes an article about this to the world, or better yet tells OSNews about it so they can have some exclusive info to include in their article. Assuming the guy never tells OSNews where it comes from, he is the only one doing something wrong.
Secondly, I think SuSE and RedHat aren’t being sued on the grounds that they provided IP but are using it in commercial products. SCO fails to sue any other Linux distro company because they aren’t big enough and don’t got enough money. This is also flawed, I’d imagine, assuming the IP is only in the kernel, as SuSE and RedHat have no knowledge that the source of the kernel is the IP of another company, much like Linus and other kernel developers don’t know if IBM punted them off some dirty code.
Legally SuSE seems to be taking the approach that they have a broad licensing program with SCO. This may not be a license to use the IP to build their products, but it may be a license which grants them the ability to sell products which make use of their IP, so that their use of any application which they package in their Distro which may use this IP is legal…. assuming SuSE has this type of license and is correct by law, Linux would most likely fall under that category and SuSE would not be for blame.
The GPL is in many ways much like public domain copyrights. I’m not aware that the government or SCO can do anything to get it wiped out because it’s the choice of a developer what license they use. It is ultimately, however, the developer who’s caught in the wrongdoing. The code itself cannot really be affected unless said IP is to be removed, and the license cannot even come into question as developers are free to choose whatever license for their code that they want.
SuSE may be in the clear, RedHat may not have a problem assuming they are unaware of the IP even having been stolen. SCO points to IBM as the ones who stole their IP and code, thus, SCO is saying that it is IBM who has stolen it and used it wrongly according to their rights to it. They can’t go about suing everyone that IBM provides services too, or that code to (Unless the other people got it willingly knowing it was SCO’s). It’s like if I go to a dealer and buy a car, the car is called a Toyota Bob, and this car contains some crazy patented technology by BMW. Mind you the dealer is the one who had access to this technology for their BMW cars, however stuck it into this one as an added bonus to get more money out of it. Then BMW finds out the dealers doing this and says “hey, stop doing this, this is ours.” They can’t come knocking on my door and just take that away from me — if so I’d imagine they’d have to give me back the cost of the car. So if SCO is going to go to RedHat and tell them to stop selling this, or say “you shouldn’t have sold this and now we’re going to *take back* all you’ve made by selling it.” RedHat is just as open to say, “you can’t take it back, we were using source code that was open and available to the public to build our product.”
If SCO is going to sue RedHat for making use and selling it, they should at least go as far to sue every Linux distro, and for that matter every Linux user for the act… without doing that they are showing that they really don’t give a shit about what has been done that’s, “wrong.” They only care about saving their failing company’s ass.
The code they would be talking about would be where they have to prove that IBM submitted it and not someone else. I’d imagine that would be easier to launder.
” So if Suse has the OK to use the IP and they integrate it into the GPL’d kernel or other GPL’d software, which license do we go by?
Holly crap this is getting worse. I hope Suse doesn’t sell out and side with SCO, they could do real damage.
Should Suse’s programmers be banned from CVS access to projects now? ”
No SuSE does not include IP into the GPL Kernel. There is no case of that and Im sure whatever SCO allows to be released is documented.
“The code they would be talking about would be where they have to prove that IBM submitted it and not someone else. I’d imagine that would be easier to launder.”
How would that be easy to launder? If they have documentation that IBM did something wrong in the past, future actions will not change anything, unless you try to rewrite history to cover your tracks. Maybe you can give a little more detail on how that is possible, because I don’t see it. I personally think the claim is ridiculous as well, but if you know something I don’t, I’m listening.
I think most of the readers here are misinterpretting what is happening. I don’t believe that SuSE agrees that there is SCO IP in Linux. I think SuSE is saying that even if there is, they have cross-licensing agreements that protect them from legal actions by SCO (namely: the right to use SCO ip in their products). The point of the agreement was to make United Linux better of course, but it may also protect SuSE, and that is what they are hoping for.
I personally believe/hope that SCO will never get the chance to go after SuSE and Redhat anyways, but you never know. I really doubt SuSE would ever side with SCO on anything like what they are doing now though.
SCO has itself released all the kernel code as a part of its own Caldera distribution under the GPL license.
By doing so, they have given up all the rights they might hold to that code or any part of it.
Can they AFTERWARDS go saying that part of that code is in fact under their specific license and that anybody who has taken it, might face a legal action?
besides ibm and redhat are there any linux companies you would trust your money to? Nah, clean up the garbage, damn german people too.
Good. Unix is a copyrighted work. They should protect their code and sue away the common crooks. That might have been my code they stole.
“When the still SCO conspires an armour
And her sullen and aborted
Currents breed tiny IP monsters,
True Coding is dead”
Substitute Science, Progress, Innovation for Coding
and this little “with apologies” to Jim Morrison’s “Horse
Latitudes” pretty much says it all.
If 30 years later we still have to worry about the
IP rights of the original ATT Unix code something is
very wrong. This will encourage more energy is going to be put into checking and prosecuting for patent and copyright violations than actually doing something new.
IOW, IP will lead to innovation gridlock not progress.