The SCO Group Announces Final Termination of IBM Contract to Use or License Dynix Software

SCO ^ | 08/13/03 | The SCO Group

[Salo]

The *REALLY* mean it this time. Really. I had to modify the title to make it fit.

[Salo]

Pinging the Penguin Pinger

[Golden Eagle]

SCO's System V UNIX contract allowed Sequent to prepare derivative works and modifications of System V software "provided the resulting materials were treated as part of the Original [System V] Software." Restrictions on use of the Original System V Software include the requirement of confidentiality, a prohibition against transfer of ownership, and a restriction against use for the benefit of third parties. Sequent-IBM has nevertheless contributed approximately 148 files of direct Sequent UNIX code to the Linux 2.4 and 2.5 kernels, containing 168,276 lines of code. This Sequent code is critical NUMA and RCU multi-processor code previously lacking in Linux. Sequent-IBM has also contributed significant UNIX-based development methods to Linux in addition to the direct lines of code specified above. Through these Linux contributions, Sequent-IBM failed to treat Dynix as part of the original System V software, and exceeded the scope of permitted use under its UNIX System V contract with SCO.

Surprised you posted this. Seems potentially very damaging to your side of the argument, especially since the Sequent contracts aren't in any way being leaked by IBM to refute this.

[Bikers4Bush]

The claims by SCO are baseless and shortly they will be out of business.

[dandelion]

Nooooo, what it says is VERY important to Linux users. It proves that the SCO lawsuit is really about CONTRACTS, not COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

July 22, 2003 - Quoting Blake Sowell of SCO:

MozillaQuest Magazine:
Does SCO have registered copyrights for:
(a) scalability improvements,
(b) performance measurement and improvements,
(c) serviceability and error logging improvements,
(d) NUMA scheduler and other scheduler improvements,
(e) Linux PPC 32- and 64-bit support,
(f) AIX Journaling File System
(g) enterprise volume management system to other Linux components,
(h) clusters and cluster installation, including distributed lock manager and other lock management technologies,
(i) threading,
(j) general systems management functions, and
(k) other areas.

Blake Stowell: "SCO does not have copyrights on these, but as stated earlier, this is not about copyrights. It is about a contract. SCO had a contract with IBM that said that once licensed, they had to hold this software in confidence. AIX is based on UNIX System V source code. Any derivative work has to be held in confidence. They have not held the AIX code in confidence, which is why we have a lawsuit against them."

Their contract with IBM is their business. But the copyright, in their own words, DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM!

[StatesEnemy]

The claims by SCO are baseless and shortly they will be out of business.

Their impending insolvency was never a question - it was whether the inevitable could be used as leverage by Billy Gates.

Think of SCO as a 'kamikaze for hire'

[BushCountry]

SCO's Management selling all of their stock, makes me wonder if my tinfoil hat is needed.

[Snuffington]

ping

[Bikers4Bush]

Well we all know what happened to the kamikazes and those who sent them now don't we.

If that's true the same will happen to gates.

[Liberal Classic]

Point one: AT&T USL sold perpetual and irrevocable UNIX licenses during the days of Bell's telephone monopoly. Many UNIX vendors bought licenses that were irrevocable or granted intellectual property rights to the holder. If either one of these is true then SCO's basis for the suit weakens. I do not know for certian what the terms of IBM's UNIX license agreement are, but I believe it likely that SCO does not have the authority to revolk IBM's license in this way. Does Novell still figure into this somewhere? I read that Novell informed SCO that they do not have this authority. I'm looking for a link on this.

Point two: It is an extrememly bad business practice to release announcements to the press based on as yet unsubstantiated claims. SCO has claimed that IBM no longer has any rights to UNIX, and that various business in industry as well as the U.S. government may owe them large amounts of money. Please understand that I am not an attorney, but I believe that they may run afoul of the law for making such unproved statements. Most companies are generally tight-lipped about the terms of any pending lawsuits as well as any potential windfall resulting from a successful conclusion. I sincerely believe that SCO is risking the involvement of the Federal Trade Commission for making some of these claims before any trial or settlement is completed, even if some judgement is delivered against IBM!

[kevkrom]

This is just a semantic dodge by SCO. Novell voided the cancellation of the contract with IBM, so SCO tries to back-door it by calling it a cancellation of a contract with Sequent (fully owned by IBM) instead.

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

Got root?

[N3WBI3]

For the love of all things computers, please IBM step on SCO now, I know you enjoy toying with them like a cat and a mouse but this is getting annoying..

[Knitebane]

Surprised you posted this. Seems potentially very damaging to your side of the argument, especially since the Sequent contracts aren't in any way being leaked by IBM to refute this.

I'm not surprised you're surprised. Since people like you live by innuendo, FUD and lies, the idea of actually posting straight facts must be anathema to you.

Dump your SCO stock yet or did Bill tell you to hold on a little longer?

[Nick Danger]

Another "pump" press release for whatever fools want to buy into their stock while SCO insiders quietly dump theirs. Here they "cancel" new sales of something that isn't even sold anymore. I guess they figure that some "greater fools" out there won't know that, and the press will imagine that SCO has landed another mighty blow.

Dynix was the operating system for the Sequent machines, the lastest of which were called "NUMA-Q" machines. IBM chose not to continue development of that series when they bought the company.

SCO will next announce that they have cancelled IBM's right to sell punch card equipment.

Disclaimer: I know Casey Powell and Scott Gibson, the Sequent founders. If I said why I know them, I would have to kill myself.

[TechJunkYard]

SCO's termination of the Sequent-IBM UNIX System V license is self-effectuating and does not require court approval.

Does it require Novell's approval? ;-)

[TechJunkYard]

I read that Novell informed SCO that they do not have this authority. I'm looking for a link on this.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/08/08.html

Enjoy.

[cc2k]

dandelion wrote:

---

Their contract with IBM is their business. But the copyright, in their own words, DOES NOT BELONG TO THEM!

---

That clears up one of my questions about this whole SCO/Linux mess.

Now, for the obvious next question. If SCO doesn't own the copyrights to these items, why in the hell would I want to pay SCO to buy a license to these things?

It seems like Mr. Stowell just told us all that this "licenses" are a complete fraud.

[Salo]

Don't be surprised. I post/read everything I find about this. Also, it's a SCO press release, so it's *supposed* to be damaging to my side. ;-)

Surprised you posted this. Seems potentially very damaging to your side of the argument, especially since the Sequent contracts aren't in any way being leaked by IBM to refute this.

[Golden Eagle]

It proves that the SCO lawsuit is really about CONTRACTS, not COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Hi Dandelion. That may be true for the IBM case, however it might not help Linux users if/when they are approached by SCO for OTHER contributions to Linux that possibly came from other ATT code samples that SCO does have copyright on. IBM is only one of many infractors (according to SCO), which is estimated by analysts to include Silicon Graphics and NEC among others.