SCO's Linux wars heat up as AU claims 'vilification'

The brawl between the SCO Group and critics of its intellectual property claims on the Linux open source software is heating up, both in Australia and overseas.

Executives from SCO's US headquarters said they planned to file a lawsuit on Tuesday in the US against a large commercial user of Linux, while the company's Australian boss labelled some of the open source community's comments about the vendor as "vilification".

The moves come as the SCO Group steps up its campaign to secure compensation for alleged improper use in Linux of what it claims to be its Unix intellectual property. SCO's moves include a campaign to sell licences to large commercial users of the open source software which, the vendor claims, will protect them from its legal actions.

Kieran O'Shaughnessy, the company's Australian and New Zealand head, told ZDNet Australia   today he had decided not to make any formal announcements about licence sales in the region as, given the "vilification SCO has received over its stance on its intellectual property claims," companies who did participate may "not want to put their heads over the ramparts".

Asked whether he had considered legal action over those comments, O'Shaughnessy said he had not considered such a move. However, he indicated it may be an option should such comments continue.

"I feel that many of the comments that have been made in publications, print media, online and in press releases... have been factually incorrect," he said.

O'Shaughnessy's comments came as the company's chief executive, Darl McBride, said the vendor planned to file a lawsuit on Tuesday in the US against a large company using Linux.

Speaking at the Software 2004 conference, McBride declined to identify the company, beyond saying it had a recognised name.

SCO threatened in November to sue Linux users, although it missed a self-imposed mid-February deadline.

"We missed by a couple weeks. The first one won't show up until tomorrow," McBride said. After his speech he said the company has two potential targets.

The first target will be a company that has a Unix licence from SCO already, giving SCO some contractual leverage in the case. McBride said. In addition, the suit will involve copyright infringement claims.

"We've been in communication with them" about the licence issue, McBride said. "Now it's time to move to the litigation part of the enforcement".

O'Shaughnessy described the US effort to ZDNet Australia   as the "spearhead of a global effort" and indicated it would focus the minds of large commercial users of Linux in Australia who may be considering their position on the SCO Group's intellectual property claims involving the open source software.

He said while he did not consider legal action as "inevitable" in Australia, he did describe it as "entirely possible".

"It will depend on how local commercial users of Linux respond to discussions we have with them," he said.

"I would like to avoid any legal [action]," he added. "But if we can't, I'm fully prepared to do that".

Advertisement

Talkback 5 comments

    How the lawsuit is going to go ...Anonymous -- 02/03/04

    How the lawsuit is going to go in court ...
    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98927&cid=8437030

    Remember those high school par ...Anonymous -- 03/03/04

    Remember those high school parties where you found a really good dig, lots of girls showed up, and for a while everything seemed right.

    Then came the truck full or morons who thought they could get laid by beating people up.

    This time the truck bears the label SCO, and Daryll McBride is standing there with a toothpick in his mouth thinking he's gonna score.

    If that's vilification because ...Anonymous -- 03/03/04

    If that's vilification because it's "not factual", then I'd very much like to see what word he uses for his company's constantly accusing Australian businesses of operating unlicensed, breaching copyright and so on when he won't even tell us, the US Courts or anyone else what exactly it is he's referring to.

    Such standover tactics match those of a criminal thug, not of a corporate gentleman. There is no fairness or balance in The SCO Group's claims. We're showing TSG our evidence, they have free access to CVS trees clearly showing the step-by-step development of Linux's code, naming the developers, but where's their evidence?

    I challenge Kieran O'Shaughnessy to name the problem code, chapter and verse. Since there are no Trade Secret claims in TSG's amended complaint, there is no legal reason at all for keeping that secret. None.

    Kieran won't show the code because TSG have no case. None of the "evidence" in their last Court round was from their own code. None.

    We're sick of being abused and accused with no evidence, no trial. Put up or shut up.

    http://www.ecosyn.us/SCO_v_IBM ...Anonymous -- 07/03/04

    http://www.ecosyn.us/SCO_v_IBM_copyright_issues.html

    SCO v IBM: SELECTED WEBPAGES CITATIONS OF COPYRIGHT LAW HISTORY RELEVENT TO UNIX SYSTEM V COPYRIGHT CLAIMS STATUS

    * NO copyrights for computer programs, source code or machine readable binary were copyrightable in the US before 1980.

    * Before 1976, mandatory notices were required on all copyrighted materials in standardized mandatory forms -- failure to adhere to the law regarding mandatory notices on published works forfeited what copyright protection was available.

    * Before 1976 copyright was not automatically conferred upon creating a fixed tangible form -- copyright was limited to those works which complied with the provisions of the prior law "The Copyright Act of 1909". Unix was developed and distributed for seven years under this law.

    * Distributing works, making one or more copies for sale, lease or loan, constituted publication during the first seven years of Unix development.

    * Since 1976, mandatory requirements for copyrighted works have required deposit of copies with the Library of Congress within 3 months of first publication. Unless Unix source code is in the Library of Congress it is not copyrighted. Unless Unix System V is in the Library of Congress, it is in violation of the 1976 revisions. Before 1976 "promptly" depositing copies was mandatory, defined in caselaw as within one year of first publication.

    * Unix System V is a collection of modules, mostly public domain through copyright forfeiture between 1969 and 1976.

    * It is defined as fraud under the 1909 Copyright Act [§ 105] "shall insert or impress any notice of copyright required by this title, or words of the same purport, in or upon any uncopyrighted article" to post-fix copyright notices upon works not qualifying for copyright.

    * None of the 1976, 1980, or 1989 adjustments to Copyright laws and the Berne Treaty permitted retroactive copyrights to previously forfeiting or public domain works.

    * Unix System V is basically public domain in the catagory of a compilation or anthology. Only new material added after 1976, or after 1980 (when computer programs first became copyrightable) could possibly qualify for copyright status, and only those collections which complied with mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. Everything else is not in compliance with copyright laws and treaties.

    As the article progresses, 'vi ...Anonymous -- 09/03/04

    As the article progresses, 'vilification' seems to be watered down to '...inaccuracies...'.
    Which is it Mr O'S - is it vilification or is it mere inaccuracies? If it is vilification then sue. If it is inaccuracies then correct them. If the author of the alleged inaccuracy repeats it then sue. Otherwise by not acting could it not be argued that you are engaging in vilification?

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Chris Duckett Get extensions going in Firefox, redux
    Previously on Null Pointer we looked at getting extensions working in Firefox betas, and that was great until the fine folks at Firefox changed their minds.
  • Array How reliable is IP telephony?
    Have you ever heard a weird kind of hissing, crackling or popping noise when calling someone on an IP telephony line? How rare is the phenomenon these days?
  • Array Forget the NBN, 100Mbps is already here
    Telstra and TransACT will shortly begin offering 100Mbps broadband to many customers. By moving early, the companies have not only raised the bar for Australia's broadband services, but thrown down a challenge to a government that now faces increased pressure to deliver the NBN as promised.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured