Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Novell Releases SCO Letters 424

cyxs writes "Here is Novell's page with letters that have been sent back and forth between Novell and SCO. Very interesting read."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Novell Releases SCO Letters

Comments Filter:
  • Next News (Score:4, Funny)

    by OpCode42 ( 253084 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:35PM (#7963382) Homepage
    Darl claims that Novell released the letters to them, and sues Novell for copyright violation.
  • by yukster ( 586300 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:36PM (#7963391)

    Wasn't SCO supposed to reveal their cards a couple days ago? Haven't seen a lick of news about that... maybe they missed the deadline cuz all the executives have fled to tropical islands without extradition treaties.

    • by Moth7 ( 699815 ) <mike DOT brownbill AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:40PM (#7963452) Journal
      Or maybe they actually gave the evidence - you don't normally see the huge (or otherwise) dossiers of collected for a trial in media until maybe after the trial as ended. Just because somebody is interested doesn't mean it will change. In fact, it would probably do SCO better to keep it closed so that we can't go grepping through the source tree to find these alleged infringements.
    • maybe they missed the deadline cuz all the executives have fled to tropical islands without extradition treaties.

      That's not how it's done anymore. These days an executive will just buy an overly large and overly expensive house in Florida, declare bankruptcy (the house is shielded), sell the house and live off the proceeds.

    • by gowen ( 141411 ) <> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:46PM (#7963522) Homepage Journal
      Wasn't SCO supposed to reveal their cards a couple days ago?
      They did have to disclose to IBM. But IBM now have to plough through whats been disclosed before reporting back to judge, who then gets to decide if thats satisfactory. Next court date: 23rd January.

      *Then* we might now.
      • by jimfrost ( 58153 ) * <> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:57PM (#7964163) Homepage
        I understand that they requested that the response be kept private, and the request was granted. I don't know how much information IBM will be able to give out about it, but for sure you're not going to get it from court records.

        Here [] is the groklaw story.

        • SCO hires PR people to scream from the top of the highest mountain (or from the top of SCO's stack of lawyer-related documents, which is probably the same thing) whenever someone actually responds to its vacuous public statements, whenever it needs a boost in stock price, or whenever it has some more "facts" to reveal to its audience of bad stock analysts and PR people.

          Now, they've supplied whatever they know about the nature of IBM's contract violations and the resultant "IP" violations, and SCO requests
    • My favorite part was the way Novell was "acting on behalf of SCO []" in regard to SGI. It's funny.
    • by justsomebody ( 525308 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:12PM (#7963785) Journal
      D-day was 12th, and as SCO said they are gonna keep with the deadline, not sooner not later. But then again they already published what they want from IBM two days early

      IBM must evaluate their response up to 23rd, which is the next court date. And if this isn't saisfactory SCO might get it's case thrown out.

      Possibility of SCO case to get thrown out is not possible in my opinion. At least it wouldn't be a smart move from IBM if they would succed to get this far. This would lead to other possible complaints from SCO side, and state would be far from peace. It would be better for IBM to bleed SCO dry and take over them as the result.

      One response that would throw SCO case out is a list of people entitled to see SCO IP. If they don't name my name (I was entitled too see their kernel which I have freely downloaded from their site), they haven't fully complied with IBM's request as in FULL LIST OF PEOPLE ENTITLED TO SEE SCO IP.

      Second possible case of throwing case out lies in SCO complaints (if they stay at last complaints about header files). As they say in brute: without SCO knowleddge there would be no *X, but then again complaining about defines and constants??? Hell IBM could produce a 5year old child that could write header file, thus where is the IP value if 5year old child can do it?
  • Awesome (Score:2, Funny)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) *
    I don't have time to read them now because I'm working, but now I have something extra to look forward to when I get home.

    Novell, the enemy of the enemy of my enemy who is the enemy of my greater enemy, is my friend, I think.
    • Re:Awesome (Score:5, Funny)

      by thrillbert ( 146343 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:15PM (#7963827) Homepage
      I don't have time to read them now because I'm working

      You're weird.. if I wasn't at work, I wouldn't even be here...

      One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. -- Will Durant
    • Novell, the enemy of the enemy of my enemy who is the enemy of my greater enemy, is my friend, I think.

      I am glad to see SCO being struck down, but I am not happy to see Unix copyrights and contracts being used to do it. Remember this it does NOT MATTER who owns Unix, because SCO's claim that Linux is an unauthorized derivative work of Unix is B.S.

      Novell may be the friend of the GNU/Linux community now, but remember, SCO was a friend of Linux once too, before they changed hands and fell under the con

  • by Carl ( 12719 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:37PM (#7963406) Homepage
    Interesting how quick SCO seems to be able to move when the cat is already out of the bag:

    SCO Purchases Specific Novell Assets []

    Wish they were so quick with pointing out what contract/copyright/trade secrets, if any, are actually violated by anybody they accuse of doing so...
    When are the Red Hat and IBM cases scheduled for resolution anyway? This whole thing is going on for far to long. Why does it take so long to resolve these issues through the courts...

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Why does it take so long to resolve these issues through the courts...

      Because there more outstanding cases than people in the US.
    • by Thagg ( 9904 ) <> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:22PM (#7963888) Journal
      Yes -- but while SCO quotes a particular passage from the contract, later on that contract specifically dis-includes the copyright to the Unix source code.

      SCO is basing its claim to copyright on Amendment 2, but it is a tenuous claim at best.

      • Yes, the claim to copyright of Unix based on Amendment 2 is murky, but it may take teams of lawyers fighting it out to clear up. The Asset Purchase Agreement states that SCO is buying the assets listed in Schedule 1.1 (a), excluding the assets listed in Schedule 1.1 (b). Later Schedule 1.1 (b) was amended by "Amendment 2".

        The gray areas are that Schedule 1.1(a) includes "all rights and ownership of UNIX and UnixWare", then Schedule 1.1(b) excludes "All copyrights and trademarks, except for the trademarks
  • by Farmer Jimbo ( 515393 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:38PM (#7963415)
    As is usually the case with SCO related news, Groklaw [] is picking the information apart []. For now most of it is transcriptions of the pdf's, but also some first blush analysis.
  • by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:39PM (#7963431) Journal
    But here's some text to chew on:

    (b) Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discretion and direction, Buyer shall amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or shall assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by Seller. In the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licenses as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf. Buyer shall not, and shall have no right to, enter into future licenses or amendments of the SVRX Licenses, except as may be incidentally involved through its rights to sell and license the Assets or the Merged Product (as such term is defined in the proposed Operating Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 5.1(c)) or future versions thereof of the Merged Product.

    (from section 4.16 of the Asset Purchase Agreement). Novell was doing a license audit in 2Q 2003.

  • by Eric_Cartman_South_P ( 594330 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:40PM (#7963439)
    -------------begin archive-------------

    Dear SCO,

    Fuck you, your wives, and your bastard kids.

    -------------end archive---------------

  • by Christoff84 ( 707146 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:40PM (#7963447) Journal
    After the slashdotting novell receives today, they will know for sure that they have slashdot behind them 100% in the drawing, hanging and quartering of SCO.
  • by scumdamn ( 82357 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:40PM (#7963448)
    Sue Goodwill does anybody else find that a funny name given the circumstances?
  • by The_Ronin ( 202785 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:40PM (#7963451)
    Groklaw already has been translating the PDF's into text as well as providing some good commentary.

    From the looks of it, it appears that Novell is about to hit SCOX with a breach of contract suit. Additionally, the letters point out that the MS and SUN contracts should pay 95% of the amount to Novell.

    With that in mind, it appears that SCO has lied on their latest earnings statement (fraud) as well as withheld information from Bay Star, etc...

    SCO is in a lot of touble.
  • by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:41PM (#7963457)
    It would be useful to have a copy of the asset purchase agreement in front of you, since these letters mostly refer to it in their arguments. Luckily, it looks like it's been OCRed and put up on Groklaw at here []. The letters in isolation don't really make much sense, hard to figure out who's blowing smoke and who's not.
  • Summary from Groklaw (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Carl ( 12719 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:41PM (#7963458) Homepage
    Grin. The following summary from groklaw seems to sum it up nicely. 30 20257821

    May 12, 2003, SCO: We own UNIX. Those Linux thieves stole it. Now we are going to make them pay!

    May 28, 2003, Novell: Your letter annoyed us. You don't own UNIX, we do.

    June 6, 2003, Novell: Stick to the facts and stop threathening us.

    June 6, 2003, SCO: We do own UNIX, stop telling everybody you own it. You did that on purpose on the same day as our earning annoucement. We also want to know what IBM told you and what you told IBM.

    June 9, 2003, Novell: You can't just terminate IBM's license, so stop claiming you will. We do have the right to tell you what to do, you know.

    June 11, 2003, SCO: We do own UNIX and we can do what we want. Stop telling everybody we can't, or else...

    June 12, 2003, Novell: Come on, you can't be serious. When we signed the contracts we promised IBM you could not terminate the license. We at Novell keep our promises.

    June 12, 2003, SCO: Okay, now you've done it. You didn't listen, so now we are giving IBM permission to keep using AIX. You may not like it, but it the way it is. The license will not be terminated!

    June 18, 2003, Novell: Our press release about the copyrights coinciding with your earnings annouchment was purely coincidental. We do not want to hurt you, we are just protecting our interests.

    June 24, 2003, Novell : You signed contracts with Microsoft and somebody else. You can't just do that without telling us first. What's up with that? So, we demand to get copies and demand that you do not do this again. Once we have the copies we will determine if you have to give their money to us instead.

    June 26, 2003, Novell: You keep telling you own the patents and copyrights of UNIX. We do acknowledge you had the right to acquire 'some' of the copyrights and we are still looking into it how much exactly you are entitled to. In any case, you do NOT own the patents.

    July 8, 2003, Novell: Please stop bothering our former executives.

    July 11, 2003, Novell: You haven't paid us in 6 months, cough up the money! Also, we are definitely going to audit your ass.

    July 17, 2003, Novell: We don't like you. You tell people lies. You thought you couldn't do that, so we didn't pay. Luckily for you we determined you could do that, so we will pay. Also, regarding the audit; we're busy, please come back later.

    August 4, 2003, Novell: We noticed you registered the UNIX copyrights. We do not agree with that. You had to demonstrate you needed the copyrights and you didn't do that. Tough luck, the copyrights are still ours!

    August 7, 2003, Novell: You withheld our money! No mather what your reasons are, you can't do that. We want assurances that this will never happen again. Compy!

    August 20, 2003, Novell: You know what, we have a technology license agreement. We want copies of the source and binary code for all versions of UNIX and UnixWare. We tried to call, but you never called back. We want the code and we want to know when we can have it.

    September 10, 2003, SCO: We don't agree with your interpretation of our contracts. You are conspiring with IBM to destroy us. SCO is not going to let this happen.

    October 7, 2003, Novell: You seem to think that AIX modifications made by IBM are subject to restrictions. Sorry, but that is simply not true. IBM owns their own code and can do with it what they like. Stop bothering IBM.

    October 7, 2003, Novell: You seem to think that IRIX modifications made by SGI are subject to restrictions. Sorry, but that is simply not true. SGI owns their own code and can do with it what they like. Even if SGI did contribute UNIX code to Linux, it was very small amount of code and it was removed very quickly. This simply does not warrant terminating SGI's license, so stop threathening that you will.

    October 7, 2003, Novell: We heard you are going to send invoices to Linux u
  • by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:44PM (#7963497) Homepage
    Type 1: We now do Linux. This is one I like, since it's something I've hoped for some time: take Novell's kick ass administration tools (granted, last time was Netware 4.1-5, so maybe the new Java/web interface sucks, but I loved the old NWadmin tool and plugins), and mix it with Linux (powerful, free as in freedom, and has more configuration text files than most junior admins know what to do with).

    I also like how they aren't going to "change" SuSE (at least, not yet). Their best bet would be to use SuSE as a development crew - moving things ahead, keeping a separate product (rather than wrecking it the way WordPerfect pretty much was), and incorporating it's advances into Netware [insert whatever number here] as an "added value Enterprise product" - much like Fedora versus Red Hat Enterprise.

    Type 2: We will indemnify you. This doesn't bother me too much - after all, SCO is playing "Big Bad" to Linux out there: "Use Linux, and we will sue you." Novell is providing some legal peace of mind. Granted, you have to buy their "new" product, but my feelings are horribly hurt by that - after all, they have to pay for the scum sucking evil hearted - I mean, laywers after all.

    Type 3: We actually own the UNIX copyright. This ties into Type 2 in a certain respect, only without lawyers. This is to give current SuSE and other Linux customers less fear. Basically, it boils down to this:

    "We know that SCO says they own the UNIX copyright and because of that they think they can get money from you for anything Linux.

    "Bullshit. The fact is, Novell still owns the important copyrights, and we won't sue you. See? We're nice.

    "Please buy our products."

    Type 3 doesn't bother me that much either, since it at least appears to be "We're nice people - honest!" Granted, they are still an amoral corporation which pretty much means they're not doing it out of the charity of their hearts but because they want to make a buck - but you have to admit *right now* they're at least showing more class than SCO.

    Either way, I'm not concerned. I figure about 12-24 months from now, this will all go away when the lawsuits finally fail and SCO and such run out of money to pay the heartless gutter snipes - I mean lawyers, President Richard Simmons will be in office with the War on Fat, iTunes Music Store will enjoy brief market domination before being the aliens arrive from Zardon VI and eradicate the earth when they learn we've evolved lawyers.

    Or - something like that. Just my opinion.
    • Of course, Novell is also riding the journalist gravy train - SCO's stock price is up mainly because investors are buying "lottery tickets" - the more they are in the news, the more some investors think they'll make the "big bucks" if SCO wins a court case.

      So as long as SCO is in the news, Novell probably figures to ride on their coat tails and get practically free advertising.
      • YOU FAILED IT. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Actually if you would've just done your research [] you'd see that Novell's stock has been steadily climbing for practically the past year anyway. It's not like they were fishing for bogus inflated prices. Nice try though.


        • Re:YOU FAILED IT. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by swb ( 14022 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:14PM (#7963803)
          Actually, Novell underperformed NASDAQ and S&P indicies for the first half of '03 and outperformed the last half. It's as hard to know what the real reason for the increase over the last six months is as it is to know what business Novell is really in. They're Netware, no, NDS, no, consulting (the Cambridge acquisition), no, Linux, umm, what are they again?

          I'd wager their increase has more to do with general stock market speculation of an overall economic recovery and increased business spending on IT infrastructure rather than enthusiasm for Novell's somewhat confusing business strategy.

    • Heartless gutter snipes

      So, uh, are you trying to say something about lawyers there?
      guttersnipe - n - a person of the lowest moral or economic station
      I was going to comment that you had it all wrong, but that was before I looked up the definition.

      Carry on.

  • by AndroidCat ( 229562 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:46PM (#7963524) Homepage
    None of the Novell letters to Darl start with "Dear Mush-For-Brains;".
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:49PM (#7963557) Homepage
    Yeah, we know. It was on Groklaw yesterday.

    The real news is that SCO had a deadline to disclose to IBM, "with specificity", exactly what the claimed infringements are. That was yesterday. Neither IBM nor SCO has announced anything.

    On January 23rd, there will be a hearing on whether IBM is satisfied with what SCO disclosed. Then we'll know quite a bit more.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:50PM (#7963573)
    Basically, Novell says that it's owed 95% of the revenue from the Microsoft and Sun licensees (hmm, SCO already gave a good chunk to the lawyers, oops), and that SCO has failed to make expected payments on revenue from other Unix source licensees (double oops). They want their money, which basically would cut SCO off at the balls.

    SCO says that they have the right to enter into new kinds of agreements and that the Microsoft and Sun licenses are not revised versions of the previous unix source licensing arrangements, so Novell can go pound salt.

    Novell asks SCO to stop harassing Novell's customers (all existing Unix source licensees) and trying to ammend contracts they have no rights to ammend, threatening to terminate liceneses for IBM and SGI that only Novell has the right to do so, being a general pain in the a**, and that generally SCO are a bunch of lying cheats (yes, it's all in there, fun reading).

    SCO doesnt say anything about being lying cheats, but claims Novell's Unix source licensees are their licensees, even though Novell has a 95% revenue interest, and SCO receives 5% "commission".

    In short, this correspondence provides a foundation for Novell to say SCO is in violation of the original Unix purchase agreement, and could form the basis for Novell to have SCO's rights to Unix terminated. Since SCO knowingly failed to list money potentially owed to Novell on either their earning statements and their official SEC filings, or the potential risk to loosing most of their recent income, SCO is probably in deep sh*t SEC-wise, which probably explains the mysterious exit of that SCO employee in charge of doing the SEC filings right before their last earning report was do. Naturally he would not wish to be the one to sign a false earnings statements.

    I guess looking at this, Bubba will soon have a new "Mc"-bride at club fed.
  • by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:53PM (#7963601)

    From the letter dated 12 June 2003, from Novell and IBM:

    Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4.16(b) of the Asset Purchace Agreement, Novell, on behalf of The SCO Group, hereby waives any purported right SCO may claim to terminate IBM's SVRX Licenses enumerated in Amendment X or to revoke any rights thereunder, including any purported rights to terminate asserted in SCO's letter of March 6, 2003 to IBM.

    This, in a nutshell, is Novell withdrawning SCO's right to terminate IBM's license, which was reported last year on Slashdot []. What I really want to see, however, is the ubiquitous Asset Purchase Agreement, which appears in both this letter and most of the other ones; the whole dispute (at least, between SCO and IBM) appears to hinge on this agreement. Unfortunately, the agreement will probably never see the light of day, for reasons of corporate confidentiality.

    • Unfortunately, the agreement will probably never see the light of day, for reasons of corporate confidentiality.

      I correct myself! SCO has just published the Asset Purchase Agreement []. Thanks to Carl [] for pointing this out in another post.

    • by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:15PM (#7963822)

      ...and here is the exact text of Section 4.16(b), taken from the relevant part [] of the Asset Purchase Agreement:

      (b)Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller. In addition, at Seller's sole discreation, Buyer shall amend, supplement, modify or waive any rights under, or shall assign any rights to, any SVRX License to the extent so directed in any manner or respect by Seller. In the event that Buyer shall fail to take any such action concerning the SVRX Licesnes as required herein, Seller shall be authorized, and hereby is granted, the rights to take any action on Buyer's own behalf. Buyer shall not, and shall have no right to, enter into future licenses or amendments of the SVRX Licenses, except as may be incidently involved through its rights to sell and license the Assets or the Merged Product (as such term is defined in the proposed Operating Agreement, attached hereto as Ehibit 5.1(c)) or future versions thereof of the Merged Produc.

      Whew, a bit long winded. Obviously, Novell is Seller and SCO (or was it Caldera back then?) is Buyer. Anyhow, I've emphasised the important paragraphs, which from my reading certainly do say that:

      1. SCO cannot amend IBM's SVRX license (i.e., terminate it) without the prior written consent of Novell,
      2. Novell can order SCO to waive its rights to terminate IBM's SVRX license,
      3. If SCO does not comply with Novell's order to waive, then Novell can act on behalf of SCO and do the waiving themselves.

      IANAL, but it looks like SCO has no contractural basis for terminating IBM's SVRX license without Novell's say-so; and since this say-so hasn't been given, it appears that IBM's SVRX license is still valid.

      • by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:46PM (#7964073) Journal
        SCO (old SCO) was the buyer. Their UNIX business was purchased by Caldera a few years later, after Caldera's IPO. Old SCO became Tarantella. This was roughly about the same time as VA's IPO, IIRC (I was using Caldera Linux at the time - it was a nice setup, well engineered). When Caldera purchased the SCO UNIX business, they released the ancient UNIX [] code freely for personal use, and began working on code merges and ABI compatibility. IIRC having a fully free UNIX was the original dream of Caldera founder Ransom H. Love.
  • by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @12:58PM (#7963645) Homepage Journal
    In the letter titled: "Letter to Linux Customers" and SCO's lawsuit against IBM" from SCO to Novell (and other Linux customers), Daryll says:

    "Similar to analogous efforts underway in the music industry, we are prepared to take all actions necessary to stop the ongoing voilation of our intellectual property or other rights."

    And in response to the specific piece Jack Messman says in his response:

    "In your letter, you analogize SCO's campaign against the Linux community to that of the record industry against major corporations whose servers contained downloaded music files. There are crucial differences between the two campaigns. The record industry has provided specific information to back up its allegation, while SCO steadfastly refuses to do so. In its allegation letter, the record industry provides evidence of allegedly infringing activity that is specific to the targeted company. This offers the company real notice of the activity, sufficient information to evaluate the allegation, and an opportunity to stop the activity if it determines the allegation is true. If SCO wants to compare its actions to that of the record industry, it should follow the example set by that industry and present specific evidence of the alleged infringement."

    At the very least, read this entire response [] from Novell to SCO regarding it's letter to Linux customers. Jack has pretty much voiced *all* the concerns that the Slashdot community has come up with in a direct letter to Daryll.

  • by WebTurtle ( 109015 ) <derek AT blueturnip DOT com> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:02PM (#7963678) Homepage

    IT managers and and other executive decision makers who have been nervous about all the warning shots fired between the battleships in this war of words can finally feast their eyes on tangible evidence demonstrating the untennable position of Darl McBride.

    In particular I point to the letter dated 12 Jun 2003 from Novell to SCO regarding the Asset Purchase Agreement between the Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. and Novell, Inc., September 19, 1995.

    In this letter, Jack Messman pretty clearly identifies the absurdity of Darl's claims be referring to very specific portions of the Asset Purchase Agreement, which give IBM "irrevocable" rights, and states that Novell also retains certain rights, over which SCO has no say.

    Darl, I don't think this is even a close call. You and I both understand the Asset Purchase Agreement deal: SCO acquired certain assests from Novell but acquired thos assets subject to certain rights of Novell. You can't have one without the other.

    [...] Novell takes its contractual commitments seriously. When we enter into or amend a license to make it "irrevocable," we mean what we say, and we expect our customers to be able to rely on what we say. We ask you to do the same.

    Now, I ask you, does this not sound like a man who is sure of his position and the position of his company? It seems to me that Linux users (corporate, individual, or those who've ascended to the next plane of existence) should be well in the clear from the majority of any claims SCO might possibly level. This evidence combined with the confidence exhibited by multi-million dollar legal defense funds set up to help those who might be the target of SCO legal action will go a long way to reassuring executives.

    Now, if only the judges in this case would hurry up and slap SCO back into the last century, where they should have stayed...

    • by Cyno ( 85911 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @03:02PM (#7964782) Journal
      I'm affraid of a system that allows corporations like SCO to exist. They should have been forced to put up or shut up, like they were in Germany. But here in the US our legal system offers no protection to businesses or consumers from corporations that behave like SCO. Even worse our leading technology corporations, Sun and Microsoft, are only too happy to support the enemy of their enemy, no matter what the consequences might be to honest hard-working Americans. So if you want to build something and make some progress against these stagnant giants be prepared to build a multi-million dollar legal defense fund to protect your interests.

      These unethical capitalists and their actions make me very affraid for the future and welfare of our society. Don't forget these corporations have a lot of influence in the media. How far do you think they'd be willing to go to make a profit? Judging from America's favorite "reality" shows I bet most people would do just about anything for money. Even if it means selling us all out, selling our children's future, etc, etc, etc.

      Doesn't this bother anyone? This is a very serious social and psychological problem. And it is a feedback loop that won't fix itself. The media, education system, judicial, legislative, and executive systems all rely on the status quo for job security. What incentive do they have to improve things or change? In fact, they lie to us in order to maintain the status quo (Advertisements, War on Drugs). This is a cycle of continuous manipulation that's called capitalism.

      Watch the movie Grass sometime, maybe it will make a little more sense to you.
  • by AtariDatacenter ( 31657 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:06PM (#7963727)
    Of course, I'm not reading this in the full context, but here's an interesting tidbit:

    2.1 Section J of Ammendment No 1 prohibits SCO from entering "into new SVRX Licneses" except "as may be incidentally involved through [SCO's] rights to sell and license UnixWare software or the Merged Product."

    2.2 With this prohibition in mind, Novell has noted SCO's recent introduction of its "SCO Intellectual Propety License for Linux," in which SCO attempst to enter into new SVRX Licenses with Linux end users.
  • Lawsuit Necissary (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LittleKing ( 688048 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:08PM (#7963743) Homepage

    Some might not argee with me, but I think this lawsuit by SCO was inevitable for the Linux community. I have believed that Linux couldn't be considered a completely viable choice for many companies until something like this happened. Why? Because it hadn't been tested.

    Linux is based on a new concept that many people don't understand. The right to freely use and change and redistribute doesn't make the Cooperate heads comfortable. Add that to the fact that most, if not all, distributions claimed not to take legal responsibility for their products. I believe that after SCO loses their lawsuit that companies will start providing legal immunity to their customers. In fact this is already starting to happen. Novell with their move into the Linux world has started to do this, IBM I believe is starting in some form or another and there could be others that I am not aware of.

    Linux is going through its growing pains and afterwards it will be better for it. Once Linux moves through this, it will be well into it's young adult life. There will still be a lot of growth and "pain" involved but it will move on. While I know many will say, "But Linux has been around for many, many years," I say to them that yes, but it hasn't been tested legally. This will give it the legal ground to move forward and grow.

    I remember several years ago during my early years in college one of my professors saying some time soon somebody would try to profit off of Linux's growth, they would take legal action and try to undermine the base that Linux is founded on. He also said that Linux wouldn't, and in reality, couldn't be a heavy weight contender in the marketplace until something like this has happened.

    I believe that when all is said and done with the lawsuit Linux will be a better off and will show to all the skeptical CEO's and anybody else that is listening that Linux is a great foundation to build their network on and more.

    • Re:Lawsuit Necessary (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:26PM (#7963923)
      I see your point, but AT&T tried essentially the same case with FreeBSD a while back, and that hindered BSD development and take-up very much. The situation is a bit different now, with a lot more people having commercial interests in Linux than in FreeBSD, and Linux just has a lot more momentum than FreeBSD did at the time (it essentially was just a research project for most folks). Linux himself has written essentially that he never would have written Linux, he just would have used FreeBSD (Net/1 anyway) if it wasn't for the shadow of the lawsuit over it.
  • Wow (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spazmania ( 174582 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:12PM (#7963780) Homepage
    Wow. That's just, wow. Publishing the correspondence like that is tantamount to saying, "Screw you. We have nothing more to say outside of court."

  • by ArmenTanzarian ( 210418 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:13PM (#7963791) Homepage Journal
    Darl: Linux stole our stuff!
    Novell: Where's your proof?
    Darl: They did it, I saw 'em!
    Novell: Where, show me...
    Darl: It's over there!
    [Novell turns around while Darl bolts out of the room]
  • karma police (Score:4, Informative)

    by happyfrogcow ( 708359 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:15PM (#7963817)
    kudos to all the karma whores leaching off interesting comments from groklaw. everything posted here is pretty much -1 redundant and available on groklaw when it comes to SCO news these days.

    • Re:karma police (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Just Some Guy ( 3352 )
      You're right; this stuff is on Groklaw. However, this is Slashdot, and I for one like the fact that people with more time than me have crossposted interesting and relevant snippets of information where appropriate.

      This isn't even a real news site - Slashdot doesn't generate stories of their own. Why do you expect all of the comments to be new, original, and unique to this site?

  • by Whatthehellever ( 93572 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:21PM (#7963879) Homepage
    ...Novell should publicly revoke SCO's licene to Unix.

    Holy shit, that would be interesting... and funny.
  • by telstar ( 236404 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:43PM (#7964048)
    I'd like to know how SCO can possibly claim others have infringed on their intellectual property when they've clearly shown that they have absolutely no intellect.
  • by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @01:51PM (#7964114)
    You know what they should do is make a Unix Like operation system without using any of the Unix code and just freely release it under the GNU then we shouldnt have these problems any more... Oh Wait... Never mind.
  • by Jerk City Troll ( 661616 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @02:01PM (#7964198) Homepage

    The movement to link litigious bastards [] to would be more interesting if we all let SCO know exactly how you feel. Make sure your link says []. (The query parameter will naturally appear in their server logs.)

  • by big-giant-head ( 148077 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @02:07PM (#7964262)
    How can they claim complete ownership of something that they are paying another company royalties on??? I'm no lawyer, but that implies Novell owns the copyrights.

    I'm no lawyer, but I am an author and my publishers have to pay me royalties BECAUSE I OWN THE COPYRIGHTS TO MY WORKS. The same would apply here. So SCO doesn't even hold the copyrights, what a twisted web Dark weaves.
  • Smeagol (Score:5, Funny)

    by RealSalmon ( 177174 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @02:13PM (#7964319)
    Tricksey penguinses . . . we told you they were false. They stole it from us . . . They stole it and we wants it back. Gollum, gollum.
  • by tiger99 ( 725715 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @02:21PM (#7964389)
    ... the servers are so overloaded that I have not been able to read much of it. I wonder why?

    But, having seen the first file, I really do wonder if McFraud believes CEOs of companies such as Novell really need to be told, in words of one syllable, what Linux is and why its development model differs from proprietary software. It seems to me that he is the one who fails to grasp the situation. He really seems to be unable to grasp that huge teams of programmers are not the way to develop good software (as the Convicted Monopolist has proved time and again...) he does not seem to comprehend that anyone with a brain, a PC and a compiler is able to develop good code, if they want to. Many of course would not bother with the learning curve, they would rather do other things, which is OK of course, but they probably could, if they wanted to. The clever people will certainly create bigger programs of better quality quicker, as we all know. But none of this involves the race of supermen, with super facilities, which McFraud seems to suggest are necessary. Mere mortals, with slowish PCs, simply take a bit longer, but because there are lots of them, each doing their own little bit, and putting the bits together occasionally, it still happens at a respectable pace.

    I think that like another nasty piece of work we like to revile on /. (the one who missed the Internet for several years, despite prodding from his employees, who now calls himself the Chief Software Architect), he simply is too stupid to understands what it is all really about.

    Unix as a money-spinner has had its day (and thanks to stupid commercial and legal issues it never did spin as much money as it could have), in fact the OS as such has had its day. Wise companies like IBM, Sun, Oracle, Novell realise that now, and know that the future for them is in building hardware (if they are in that business) and/or providing middleware and support. McFraud is simply living in the past. BTW, the next thing to expire as a money-spinner will be the "Office" suite, they are almost two-a-penny now (strictly, two for zero pennies for the pedantic), a far cry from the $400 spreadsheet or WP originally. The fact is that like commodity hardware, commodity software is starting to get very much cheaper. In fact hardware costs are the driving force. It once may have seemed reasonable to put a $400 Lotus 1-2-3 on a $4000 PC/AT (guessing at prices, from the vague recesses of my fading memory, they might not be quite right), but to put a $400 Office suite on a $300 PC is sheer folly. The economies of scale apply to software far more than to hardware, likely marginal cost of an Office suite about $1 for the box and CD, but the Monopolist, the Fraudster and such like have tried to conceal that fact from the gullible public.

    I look forward to reading more of McFrauds rantings when the load on the servers subsides.

  • Novell As Superhero (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @02:42PM (#7964576) Homepage Journal

    Is it just me, or does it seem like every time we saw back-peddaling or inaction from SCO on some assinine demand it's because Novell beat the slop out of them with "Section 4.16(b)" of thier software agreement on UNIX licensing?

    They even cracked SCO upside the head on behalf of IBM once or twice about SVRX licensing.

  • by jebel417 ( 741138 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @02:48PM (#7964644)
    And such a lawsuit would breach a huge hole in any SCO vs Linux end-user lawsuit. Such a suit would almost certainly gain a quick, long-term stay pending the outcome of Novell vs SCO battle for the Unix copyrights. (aw geesh your honor, I didn't really know who owned the copyrights, I don't know who to pay, there's a battle going on in court for it right now, etc). And that litigation would probably take years. Meanwhile IBM and Red Hat vs SCO would continue....
  • by Mr. Darl McBride ( 704524 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @02:57PM (#7964739)
    Once again, I would like to reiterate that this is an SCO IP issue. Our IP is all over Linux.

    Ladies and gentlemen, today I would like to show you exactly what I mean. For Exhibit A, I would like to show the contents of /etc/hosts where you will clearly see our IP:
    Exhibit B, the output of traceroute, where you clearly see that this is SCO's IP, ZERO hops from our main...
  • by Gr8Apes ( 679165 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @03:37PM (#7965043)

    A side letter clarifying the parties' understanding of the Software Agreement, also dated February 1, 1985, states (in paragraph A.2) that:

    Regarding Section 2.01, we [AT&T] agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you [IBM] are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us.

    The agreements between AT&T and IBM, as amended, including the side letter (the "Agreements"), thus provide for a straightforward allocation of rights: (1) AT&T retained ownership of its code from the Software Products ("AT&T Code"), and the Agreements' restrictions on confidentiality and use apply to the AT&T Code, whether in its original form or as incorporated in a modification or derivative work, but (2) IBM retained ownership of its own code, and the Agreements' restrictions on confidentiality and use do not apply to that code so long as it does not embody any AT&T Code.

    I found that quite interesting, mainly that this appears to directly contradict SCO's claim that they own all AIX code as it is derived from "their IP"

    If you're interested in this letter, it's the Novell to SCO letter []

Forty two.