Computerworld - This is the week. On Nov. 18, 2003, The SCO Group announced that it would sue some corporate Linux user within 90 days. That put the deadline at Monday, Feb. 16. Has SCO sued? I don't know -- I'm writing this a few days before that deadline, and my time machine is in the shop, so you'll have to go to Computerworld.com for the latest news. (Editor's note: No new legal actions have been announced as yet this week.)
But regardless of whether SCO has already sued a user or is just running a little behind schedule, winning any Linux lawsuits may have just gotten a lot harder for SCO.
Who said so? AT&T -- in 1985.
Here's what happened: On Friday, Feb. 6, at a court hearing in SCO's lawsuit against IBM, SCO laid out its clearest explanation yet of why it believes it owns source code that's in Linux.
SCO argued that it doesn't own just the Unix source code originally written by AT&T. SCO said it also owns all additions to Unix that were ever made by companies that licensed Unix source code -- including IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems and even Microsoft.
Those additions are "derivative works" of Unix. And the Unix licenses that AT&T issued said derivative works are to be treated "as part of the original software product."
So since IBM developed a file system and added code for it to AIX, IBM's version of Unix, SCO argued that the code now belongs to SCO. And since IBM later donated that IBM-developed file-system code to Linux, it's in Linux without SCO's permission.
As a result of such donations, there are millions of lines of vendor-contributed, SCO-owned code in Linux. At least that's SCO's interpretation of the Unix license.
Not surprisingly, IBM disagrees. So does Novell, which bought the Unix source code from AT&T and sold the Unix business to SCO in 1995.
IBM believes that it still owns any code it added to the AT&T Unix code for AIX. So IBM can remove and reuse that code in its own products, or even give it away to Linux. That's how "derivative works" function under copyright law, though the Unix license is a contract.
Who's right? Looks like a nasty he said/she said court fight over what that derivative-works clause means, doesn't it?
But on the same day SCO's lawyer was explaining his legal theory in court, Novell was faxing something to SCO's offices.
It was a copy of "$ echo," a newsletter published by AT&T in 1985 for its Unix licensees. In it, AT&T clarified what that
- Securing Mobility, From Device to Network At one time, the process of managing and securing mobile devices and applications was fairly straightforward. Most organizations worried about one application (email)...
- Planning for Mobile Success Many organizations are seeing clear and quantifiable benefits from the deployment of mobile technologies that provide access to data and applications any time,...
- The Challenges and Opportunities of Mobile Application Development Nearly all business users now demand mobile devices--their own or company-owned--along with anywhere access to corporate applications and data. What turns mobile devices...
- Gartner MarketScope for Group Video Systems The Gartner "MarketScope for Group Video Systems" evaluates 7 group video system vendors based on 6 customer-focused criteria such as customer experience, market...
- Keep Servers Up and Running and Attackers in the Dark An SSL/TLS handshake requires at least 10 times more processing power on a server than on the client. SSL renegotiation attacks can readily...
- On Demand: Mastering the Art of Mobile Content Management Mobile device usage in the enterprise has skyrocketed, and it continues to escalate. IT must answer to users who demand access to their... All Gov't Legislation/Regulation White Papers | Webcasts