Moved from article:
This page is a work in progress, consolidating earlier article fragments relating to this lawsuit -- this article needs major fact-checking and copy-editing
Merphant 22:25 30 May 2003 (UTC)
- (Tarantella did not initiate this lawsuit).
Snipped this too, since I couldn't find any mention of it in the linked articles (not that I looked very hard). -- Merphant 22:43 30 May 2003 (UTC)
Should this page not be named "SCO vs. IBM Linux lawsuit"? vs. is the standard contraction of versus, not v. --AW
- Both abbreviations are listed in Websters's. -- Iseeaboar 00:22 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There's something about copyright in re: this case today on slashdot. I haven't had time to read it yet--have to go to bed. People following this case may want to look into it. Koyaanis Qatsi 00:18 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Could someone clarify which of the following the allegations are about:
- copying SCO code verbatim
- copying the gist of SCO code
- using an algorithm that SCO has a patent/whatever on
Is the particular claim based on copyright law, or some other type of intellectual property law?
The allegations made by SCO are that code was copied verbatim, as in cut-and-pasted. One consultant who signed an NDA to see the code said that he saw approximately 80 lines that were identical, down to mis-spellings in the comments. This proves nothing, since it says nothing about the genesis of the code, but there are apparently identical parts in both.
- If even one line of that went from GPL'd Linux to SCO, rather than the other way around, then SCO Unix is infected, and anyone who got a SCO binary has the right to the source code. If someone wants to post the source code, or make it available to someone who wants to post it (preferably someone who was going to declare bankruptcy soon anyway, just in case), I'd say they have a right to.
SCO is claiming that IBM coders copied that code into Linux, which was then released publicly in contravention of their licencing with SCO; IBM disputes all of the preceding sentence. Copyright comes into play insofar as, assuming Linux contains trade secret code, there is a copyright violation for anyone using it.
I've seen speculation that this is all an elaborate pump-and-dump by SCO shareholders: Apparently the major stockholders were buying back large chunks of stock just before launching the lawsuit, and are now in a position to sell them for large profits (given how SCO's stock has climbed over the last few months). Can anyone confirm?
Justin Johnson 10:02:00 22 Jul 2003 (CST)
- The suit itself states that IBM, who had a partnership with the SCO Group (now Tarantella), had access to code now owned by The SCO Group, and abused that access by getting it incorporated in the Linux kernel code base.
- Executives of The SCO Group have muddied the waters by claiming that because of this act, all users of Linux have violated their intellectual property & are liable to be sued by The SCO Group. They have evaded defining exactly what code was wrongfully incorporated, and also from where -- at one point MacBride claimed that the original AT&T license to the UNIX code required all modifications made to derived variants became the property of AT&T, & therefore any modifications IBM made to AIX belonged to The SCO Group, & could not be shared with Linux.
- This effective vagueness of The SCO Group's claims have raised the suspicions of all observers, except for those most obviously hostile to Linux. As a result, many observers suspect that this lawsuit is an attempt to pump up The SCO Group's stock before major stockholders (e.g., corporate officers, the Canopy Group) sell stock at an inflated price. And I believe several individuals are closely following the usual reporting agents for possible proof.
- (Note -- the above is more POV than fact. Before putting any of this in the main article, please take the time to research specific supporting material -- which I have in many places glossed over -- & add them to this analysis.) -- llywrch 18:50 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)
What does this sentence mean:
On July 28, it was reported that IBM was briefing its salespeople that out SCO's distribution of Linux under the GPL appeared to undermine SCO's case.
Either there's a missing word there or the sentence needs to be reworded.
Lduperval 20:39, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)
This article now has enough stuff in it that it can be refactored to reflect the issues more than the timeline. -- The Anome
Also, any chance of a very quick 5-line or so summary, maybe on another page? This would help those who have a passing interest in the case to see at a glance what it's all about without wading through the minutiae? GRAHAMUK 07:03, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
- I what way does the introductory paragraph fail to do this? That and the next 3 paragraphs, "SCO's claims", "Free software community reaction", and "The GPL issue" pretty much sum it up AFAICT. -- Merphant
- My bad - somehow my eye skipped past that, maybe because the table of contents got in the way. GRAHAMUK 00:30, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
A vast extlink farm was added to the article: I've put it on SCO v. IBM Linux lawsuit/more external links. Wikipedia is not Google.
- Sure it isn't. However, Wikipedia's an information source, and I think links to the (extensive) press coverage of the development of this case is a good thing. No objections to the move, though; it's something I'd have done myself later on, anyway. I moved the newly-created page to a more sensible title, though (SCO v. IBM Linux lawsuit/Press coverage) and also added a link to the main page about the lawsuit. -- Schnee 21:18, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
TEST
So, can we have an article specifically on the claim that all of SCO Unix is now GPL'd, and that the complete source code is legally redistributable now as GPL code? It would seem that if even one line of Linux got into SCO Unix, then, it's all wide open. This backs Microsoft's claim that open source is dangerous, but, so what? SCO Unix was all of real Unix - if that's now GPL'd, what fun!
That's a serious enough competitor for Microsoft, isn't it?
Who would care if no commercial player was ever motivated to sell a proprietary OS ever again?