[Fsfe-ie] IPRED2 draft 0.4
ifso at gibiris.org
Mon Aug 29 15:22:50 CEST 2005
teresahackett at eircom.net said:
> Corrections in the News
> This section of our Website is presented as a ready source for media,
> analysts, and others regarding corrections and clarifications to
> recently-published articles about The SCO Group.
I would wholly disagree that this page is anything close to worthy. This
web page is part of a campaign that The SCO Group, formerly Caldera, is
waging to counter the manner in which Groklaw is so effectively debunking
it's efforts to hamper the GNU/Linux market.
Looking at some of those "corrections":
- SCO's Lawsuits Do Not Involve Patents
The SCO Group has always wanted to drag patents into the law
suits. For example, I have shown on a posting on the Groklaw
that patents were specifically mentioned as being part of the
complaints twice and another 24 times where patent claims could
be inferred. These are press quotations from the CEO himself, and
there is no specific mention of patent infringement in the court
documents. However, The SCO Group has found that talking to the
press is very effective, as journalists tend not to read the
court filings. As a result, for the first two years into these
cases, very few in the press knew that patents weren't
specifically involved and some, those who ostentatiously support
SCO, asserted that they were. Mostly it was assumed that patents
were part of SCO's problem.
However, SCO does claim in the courts that "methods and concepts"
belonging to them have been misappropriated by IBM and others.
As copyright extends only to the expression of methods and
concepts, it can be inferred that they want to fight in court
over something akin to patents as we know how they're used these
- SCO's Claims Regarding All Versions of UNIX
From the page: "SCO has never claimed to own all additions to or
versions of UNIX that were ever made by companies that licensed
UNIX source code..." Among the claims against IBM in the initial
filing was that IBM has violated The SCO Group's copyrights
by contributing RCU (Read-Copy-Update), NUMA (Non-Uniform Memory
Access) and JFS to the Linux kernel. These were "derivitive"
technologies developed by IBM for AIX, and in one case initially
for OS/2, and are excluded in the standard UNIX contract used by
AT&T. This exclusion was confirmed by a newsletter issued by AT&T
in early 1985. See
for more information.
- SCO and DaimlerChrysler
The SCO Group contends the interpretation of a Slander of Title
law suit. In order, however, to prove Slander of Title, The SCO
Group must prove it owns the title. It has yet to do that. In an
indirect, but most compelling, way, the Daimler Chrysler suit
"does indeed contest the ownership of Unix copyrights."
- SCO Has Revealed the Code
Not really. The non-disclosure agreement that those who were
shown the "mountains of code" precluded the view from ever,
in their lives, working on UNIX code again. Therefore, those
who did get to see it were not expert in the labrynthine
provenance of all the code in the current UNIX and Linux
kernel bases. Those who would have the knowledge and experience
were not going to touch that agreement with a barge pole.
Part of The SCO Group's claim regarding header files includes
errno.h. Read http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031222174158852
for Linus' own discussion of how SCO cannot have a claim to
With respect to ABIs, however, SCO doesn't own the copyright on
the specifications and developers are free to implement
these specification as and when they wish.
Also, look at the discussion on
which also suggests that SCO released it's own versions of the
header files in question under the GPL anyway.
Finally, on the one occassion that SCO showed code publically,
the two fragments code they claimed demonstrated whole-sale
copying on the part of IBM, were quickly shown to be (i) from
the public domain (i.e. not copyrighted, available for anyone
to use), and (ii) incorrectly contributed by SGI. SGI corrected
that some months before SCO brought it to the attention of
- SCO is a Products and Services Company
The SCO Group contends that CNN's statement that "SCO, with its
lawsuits against IBM (IBM: Research, Estimates), Novell (NOVL:
Research, Estimates), Red Hat (RHAT: Research, Estimates), and
others, clearly likes to make a name for itself through its
legal actions" is wrong and clarifies it only with: "SCO has not
filed a lawsuit against Red Hat. Red Hat filed a lawsuit against
SCO in August 2003." Why didn't it explain how it is a products
and services company?
I refer to Groklaw a lot because I read it every day and have contributed
to it in some small ways. Its primary mission at present is to be an
anti-FUD web site, and it certainly fosters proper thought and
consideration. Groklaw (as yet, some might think) is not a party to any of
the law suits, and accusations of who, other than Pamela Jones (PJ), is
behind it have yet to have a shred of evidence to support them. As a
resource for getting to understand the details and nuances of SCO's
claims, tactics and strategy, it's invaluable.
A web page managed by The SCO Group can not be anything other than a
propaganda site intended to promote its own side of the story.
Look at that page if you must, but bring along a large salt lick.
Éibhear Ó hAnluain
More information about the FSFE-IE