On UrbanBaby: Is it OK to breastfeed in public?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By David Becker
Posted on ZDNet News: Aug 19, 2004 5:13:00 PM

IBM asked a federal court to bar the SCO Group, a Linux adversary, from distributing any Linux software, in the latest filing in their ongoing legal battle.

In a motion for partial summary judgment filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City, IBM asks the court to rule in favor of its counterclaim alleging SCO has violated the terms of one of the most common licenses under which Linux software is distributed.

An IBM representative declined to comment beyond the text of the motion. An SCO representative said the company disputed IBM's allegations and would respond soon in court.

The motion says that by distributing Linux software governed by the GNU General Public License (GPL) while at the same time declaring the GPL invalid, SCO has forfeited the right to distribute Linux code, particularly code to which IBM has made contributions. SCO has been a harsh critic of the GPL, declaring it a violation of the U.S. Constitution in one legal document.

"SCO has, without permission, copied code from 16 discrete packages of copyrighted source code written by IBM for Linux and distributed those copies as part of its own Linux products," according to IBM's latest motion. "Although IBM's contributions to Linux are copyrighted, they are permitted to be copied, modified and distributed by other under the terms of the...GPL. However, SCO has renounced, disclaimed and breached the GPL, and therefore the GPL does not give SCO permission or a license to copy and distribute IBM's copyrighted works."

The motion asks for a partial ruling that SCO has violated IBM's Linux-related copyrights and a permanent injunction barring SCO from distributing allegedly infringing Linux code.

SCO rattled the technology world last year when it sued IBM, claiming the computing giant illegally incorporated into its Linux software some source code from the Unix operating system, which SCO claims to control. The case has since ballooned into a far-ranging attack on Linux, attracting legal attention from Linux companies Novell and Red Hat and the ire of Linux supporters worldwide.

SCO has since expanded the case to include several prominent corporate Linux users, including automaker DaimlerChrysler and retailer AutoZone.

SCO has suffered several setbacks lately in its multipronged legal attack. A judge discarded most of the DaimlerChrysler case, and legal expenses have cut into the company's profits .

While SCO now is primarily associated with the Unix operating system, the company has a history with Linux. Software based on the open-source operating system was the company's main business when it was known as Caldera Systems. The company began emphasizing Unix when it renamed itself SCO but continued to distribute Linux software for a time and still offers downloadable support files for existing owners of its OpenLinux server and workstation products.

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 140 Talkback(s)
You agree?
** "I have to agree with Axe on this one. There is no CLEAR evidence that they actually "broke" the GPL by declaring it invalid. Although there is evidence of wrong doings here I agree." **

Ap... (Read the rest)
Posted by: mlynch1234 Posted on: 08/21/04 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
Case closed?  crocd | 08/19/04
Would someone  Linux User 147560 | 08/19/04
No  Yagotta B. Kidding | 08/19/04
Yep, SCO was Microsoft's little experiment.  Xunil_Sierutuf | 08/19/04
HA!!!  Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
Fighting fire with fire!  George Mitchell | 08/19/04
BAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!  James T. Kirk | 08/19/04
SCO is in trouble  NonZealot | 08/19/04
Now hang on, ANYONE can distribute Linux.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
You still have to follow the rules  Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
No disagreement there.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
But SCO insists that the GPL is INVALID!  George Mitchell | 08/19/04
Doesn't matter at all.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
The courts ARE already issuing decisions ...  George Mitchell | 08/19/04
A License not a Contract  Darth23 | 08/19/04
Same result, you can argue a license too.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
For those of you that have serious legal impairments...  AmusedAtItAll | 08/20/04
Good one!  mlynch1234 | 08/21/04
Invalid licenses  Chris Moller | 08/19/04
Re: Invalid licenses  none none | 08/19/04
try reading the license before commenting - SCO is clearly acting illegally  hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
Again, I see your mistake.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
read the license  sbj | 08/19/04
The filing clears this up  mlybbert | 08/19/04
What is IBM's position anyway?  Still Lynn | 08/19/04
Which SCO didn't do...  Still Lynn | 08/19/04
Nope...  nomorems | 08/19/04
You talk big...  Jose Jimenez | 08/19/04
And where did they break anything?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
public quotes saying it is invalid would do it. IBM have relevant evidence  hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/licenses.html  Still Lynn | 08/19/04
Head in the sand?  Jose Jimenez | 08/19/04
You must have missed this part of it.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
You must not understand that part of it...  sbj | 08/19/04
Different Case Alltogether  GregSalts | 08/20/04
Been to MS FUD classes again?  AmusedAtItAll | 08/20/04
I also think since it's copyrighted...  Monkey_MCSE | 08/19/04
No, I am afraid you are mistaken.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
You are incorrect about the copyright  dscherf | 08/19/04
My bad, I mis-spoke.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Follow dscherf's advice then....  Still Lynn | 08/19/04
Read them, and as i said, it's IBM's view.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
part of the "rules" include accepting the licence  hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
Did you actually read the article?  Patrick Jones | 08/19/04
Yes I read it, I see nothing to agree with you.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Read IBM's request for PSJ  dscherf | 08/19/04
Oh I am certain IBM has their own "view".  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
In court views don't matter  Darth23 | 08/19/04
100% spot on!!!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Thanks, but I already know yours  dscherf | 08/19/04
Not even close.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Reply to Axe  dscherf | 08/19/04
Closer? (reply to No_Ax)  George Mitchell | 08/19/04
George, not at all...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
RE: Axe's reply to George  Iain_Peters | 08/20/04
How about from the article...  Patrick Jones | 08/19/04
Once more...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
I guess I can't help you..  Patrick Jones | 08/19/04
So....  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Nice try..  Patrick Jones | 08/19/04
How about...  tic swayback | 08/19/04
Courts have already ruled tic.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Where?  tic swayback | 08/19/04
the difference is...  ryusen | 08/19/04
There is no difference.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
but are they also violating it?  ryusen | 08/19/04
ZZ: That's what the court  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
of course...  ryusen | 08/19/04
SCO broke the terms of the GPL...  dutidjia@... | 08/20/04
here is a quote from "the register"  hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
Well, duh!  Still Lynn | 08/19/04
Read the GPL  Darth23 | 08/19/04
How do arrive at that?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
They can't have it both ways - at least not in the same court case  Darth23 | 08/19/04
Of course they can.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
That's a horrible analogy  Darth23 | 08/19/04
You fail to understand how convoluted the law is.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
The key phrase here  tic swayback | 08/19/04
If SCO claims the GPL is invalid then they owe IBM some big bucks.  Darth23 | 08/19/04
assumptions are different with a copyright license over employment contract  hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
You missed the point of the world we live in....  Still Lynn | 08/19/04
I simply don't see that.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Another of bitty's apples and oranges comparisons  AmusedAtItAll | 08/20/04
Sorry but...  bhanes@... | 08/19/04
You agree?  mlynch1234 | 08/21/04
Did you actually read the license?  George Mitchell | 08/19/04
And I ask again!!!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
They ask for licencing fees  Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
A seperate issue.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Wrong again, Axe  dscherf | 08/19/04
Whoa, isn't that what the courts are doing?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
RE: Whoa, isn't that what the courts are doing?  Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
Reply to Axe  dscherf | 08/19/04
Well...  Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
That remains to be seen.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Not separate  freecode_99 | 08/19/04
Wich they themselves have distributed under gpl  NemesisNL | 08/19/04
SCO is screwed  Darth23 | 08/19/04
Thanks!  dscherf | 08/19/04
The part you cut out when you quoted me.  George Mitchell | 08/19/04
You are sadly mistaken. Let me clarify.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Clarify? How about some specifics.  Darth23 | 08/19/04
Not that simple...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
RE Not that simple...  Darth23 | 08/19/04
True  NemesisNL | 08/19/04
Here's your answer...  gigglypuff | 08/19/04
Just say "No I'm still ignoring the license!"  Still Lynn | 08/19/04
You gotta give time for reading Lynn.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Read those replies, that's how I got here....  Still Lynn | 08/21/04
SCO Breaks License by requesting per seat license fees  GregSalts | 08/20/04
Not quite  dscherf | 08/19/04
the basic logic here is:  ryusen | 08/19/04
I see your mistake.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Very true  Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
ABSOLUTELY!!!  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
Thank you  Michael Kelly | 08/19/04
And thank you...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
You're missing something: DMCA not GPL  Darth23 | 08/19/04
No!!  NemesisNL | 08/19/04
as i said...  ryusen | 08/19/04
A missing point  freecode_99 | 08/19/04
WRONG since the license clearly says "if you do not accept this License"  hipparchus2000 | 08/19/04
Again, I see your mistake.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
your example is reversed in this case...  ryusen | 08/19/04
But do you see London and France?  Still Lynn | 08/19/04
Let's not get mean, ok?  No_Ax_to_Grind | 08/19/04
It's not quite like that  Michael Kelly | 08/20/04
Again, you need to read the court documents.  Still Lynn | 08/21/04
Not exactly  freecode_99 | 08/19/04
Clearly you did not read the GPL  NemesisNL | 08/19/04
Here ya go houndsmaster, bark at this.  Still Lynn | 08/19/04
Must keep it simple for No-Ax  Richard Flude | 08/19/04
Nanny, nanny, pooh, pooh!  Chad_z | 08/19/04
Yes but..  Darth23 | 08/19/04
I think SCO is done. On a personal note Go Axy!  Laff | 08/19/04
This is how it is done  fullebr@... | 08/19/04
Funny part is  mlybbert | 08/19/04
An obvious tautology motion...  John Le'Brecage | 08/20/04
Flush Zoon  Inventor_z | 08/20/04
If is such a convoluted question, get a lawyer on the TalkBack  FilledOut | 08/21/04

What do you think?

advertisement
advertisement

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here