Replies to post #594 on Microsoft Corp (MSFT)

[Burpzilla]

Interesting letter!

[sgolds]

Burpzilla, fascinating open letter! There are a couple of interesting items -

The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr. Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed UNIX System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 26, 2003). Mr. Perens continued with a string of arguments to justify the "error in the Linux developer's process." However, nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code that was licensed to Silicon Graphics under strict conditions of use, and then contributed that source code into Linux as though it was clean code owned and controlled by SGI. This is a clear violation of SGI's contract and copyright obligations to SCO. We are currently working to try and resolve these issues with SGI.

It seems there is a real issue with SGI, if this is true.

The letter goes further to imply that the case against IBM is about similar issues. At the beginning, it is alleged:

My company, the SCO Group, became a focus of this controversy when we filed a lawsuit against IBM alleging that SCO's proprietary UNIX code has been illegally copied into the free Linux operating system.

One has to read well into the text to find that this is not so:

5. Use of derivative rights in copyrighted material is defined by the scope of a license grant. An authorized derivative work may not be used beyond the scope of a license grant. License grants regarding derivative works vary from license to license--some are broad and some are narrow. In other words, the license itself defines the scope of permissive use, and licensees agree to be bound by that definition. One reason SCO sued IBM is due to our assertions that IBM has violated the terms of the specific IBM/SCO license agreement through its handling of derivative works. We believe our evidence is compelling on this issue.

Well, what is the alleged IBM violation, Mr. McBride? Copying code, or derivatibe works? There is a huge difference! It is much harder to demonstrate that a solution is derived from a copyright solution - perhaps it is a case of independent developers coming up with similar solutions to a common problem. IBM merely has to show that the solution was developed independently, and then SCO's claims would have no merit.

While I can agree that Mr. McBride's company (SCO) purchased the rights to Unix System V fairly, and own those rights, he is being disengenuous to talk about his allegations of outright copying in SGI's case, claim the same for IBM, and then bury the clarification way down in the letter.

I suspect that SGI will excise the copied code, and IBM will defend their code rigorously in court. Meanwhile, Mr. McBride seems intent to make enemies of the industry he needs through these tactics.