MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-10-28 |
| FROM | Michael Richardson
|
| SUBJECT | RE: [hangout] SCO Declares Total War on the GPL -- Says GPL Is No t Enforceable
|
When is SCO going to run for a political office? They have the mind set.
-----Original Message-----
From: Inker, Evan [mailto:EInker-at-gam.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:54 PM
To: hangout-at-nylxs.com
Subject: [hangout] SCO Declares Total War on the GPL -- Says GPL Is Not
Enforceable
OK, here's an article sure to stir your blood...
Bottom line, SCO is saying the GPL is unconstitutional and cannot be
enforced.
Has anyone at the FSF responded to SCO?
SCO Declares Total War on the GPL -- Says GPL Is Not Enforceable
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031027193958740
Monday, October 27 2003 -at- 07:39 PM EST
Here's SCO's Reply to IBM's Amended Answer with Counterclaims.
The most significant thing they say is that the GPL isn't enforceable or
applicable, and in paragraph 16 that Linux is an unauthorized "version" of
UNIX:
"Denies the allegations of paragraph 16 and alleges that Linux is, in
actuality, an unauthorized version of UNIX that is structured, assembled and
designed to be technologically indistinguishable from UNIX, and practically
is distinguishable only in that Linux is a 'free' version of UNIX designed
to destroy proprietary operating system software."
I'm guessing you have a few words to say on that.
In their Sixth Affirmative Defense, they say:
"The General Public License ('GPL') is unenforceable, void and/or voidable,
and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto, are barred."
The Seventh Affirmative Defense adds:
"The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that
enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise
barred as a matter of equity."
The Eighth adds:
"The GPL violates the U.S. Constitution, together with copyright, antitrust
and export control laws, and IBM's claims based thereon, or related thereto,
are barred."
They forgot to add that the GPL causes cancer. It's also responsible for the
fires in California. And it's fattening.
If you care about the rest and are still listening, the other main things
they say are that they deny "that Novell sold only part of its UNIX assets"
and they deny "that IBM has any remaining rights under the referenced
agreements". They also say that Sequent acquired certain UNIX rights
pursuant to its own license agreements with AT&T "all of which IBM failed to
attach to its counterclaim" and they admit only that IBM "acquired the stock
of Sequent". This probably means IBM will say Sequent after they were bought
comes under their license and SCO will say no, they stay under the old ones.
SCO "denies the enforceability or applicability of the GPL" and says SCO
"may have" distributed the kernel and admits it distributed under the GPL.
Paragraph 42 is interesting. They say:
"SCO was unaware of IBM's Linux-related investment prior to its formal
announcements thereof, and further alleges that IBM secretly and improperly
failed to disclose to SCO such Linux-related investments and its intentions
with respect to Linux before and during Project Monterey."
So, our assignment, should we choose to accept it, is to find evidence on
this point.
Look at paragraph 55. They admit they sent the 1500 letters to "the world's
largest corporations" but deny the letters "threatened litigation".
In paragraphs 60 and 61, it acknowledges the existence of the Novell
letters, "but denies any legal or factual basis for the said" letters.
It admits revoking IBM's right to "further use, license or distribute AIX".
In paragraph 75, it admits it "licenses and distributes" UnixWare,
"OpenServer", "SCO Manager," and "Reliant HA", but "denies infringement".
In paragraph 79, they say that despite having terminated IBM's right to use,
license and distribute AIX, IBM is still bound by the AT&T Agreements and
Amendment X's confidentiality requirements, which "specifically continue
beyond termination".
Paragraph 120 is fascinating. They seem to be saying that not only did IBM
violate SCO's "contract and intellectual property rights" (um...yesterday it
was only contracts, wasn't it, according to SCO's Memorandum of Law?), but
that IBM's contributions to Linux were under the GPL, a license they say is
not applicable or enforceable.
In paragraph 122, they say IBM has no legal authority to place copyright
notices on "certain of its AIX and Dynix contributions to UNIX" so they plan
on fighting the legitimacy of IBM's copyright.
They go on to say that "IBM's purported copyright registrations are invalid
and/or IBM has violated copyright laws in respect to its claims alleged and
the claims based on, or related to, copyrights are barred." The Fifteenth
Affirmative Defense explains:
"On information and belief, one or more of the copyrights at issue is, or
may be, unenforceable by reason of IBM's inequitable conduct, acts or
omissions before the United States Patent and Trademark Office."
We all know how sloppy IBM's legal department has historically been, so this
claim is likely to be left standing at the end of the day. Mwahahahaha. Not.
And their *copyright* will be unenforceable because of their conduct at the
*Patent and Trademark Office*? That's a new one on me.
Then they say IBM may not be the owner of the four patents and that they are
in fact invalid, "for failure to comply with one of more requirements" of
the US Code, including Sections 101, 102, 103 and/or 112 of Title 35. Of
course, They failed to comply. The Big Blue guys don't forget to dot their
i's or cross their t's. There's too many of them, for one thing. This is
really ridiculous. It drones on some more about the patents not being valid.
Then it says IBM lacks standing to bring certain claims because they failed
to "join one or more parties needed for just adjudication of their
counterclaims, including, but not limited to the Free Software Foundation
and contributors to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels."
They want you in there, guys. May their wish come true. (Copyright
infringement dollar signs flash though my mind.) Then they ask for
"dismissal with prejudice" or a judgment in their favor, with attorneys'
fees and costs.
Right. Hold your breath, SCO. Please.
Well, folks, I guess it's true. They must really be trying to inspire IBM to
buy them out. I don't see any legal hope for SCO.
As for the GPL, it's total war.
****************************************************************************
This message contains confidential information and is intended only
for the individual or entity named. If you are not the named addressee
you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received
this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free
as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive
late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this
message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
This message is provided for informational purposes and should not
be construed as an invitation or offer to buy or sell any securities or
related financial instruments.
GAM operates in many jurisdictions and is
regulated or licensed in those jurisdictions as required.
****************************************************************************
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
