[plug] SCO cops a couple (was: AUUG CALLS...)

[Leon Brooks]

On Wed, 28 May 2003 20:13, Kimberly Shelt wrote:
> This is the first and only Press Release I have been sent regards
> the issue, from a .au focused group..

LA, SLPWA and AUUG have been discussing it for a week or so, and the 
possibility of a joint release. We decided that independent but 
complementary releases were in order, so look for a few more in 
following days.

Direct link to AUUG's take:

    http://www.auug.org.au/publications/press/auugOnSCO_FINAL.html

> I don't make the news, just report it :)

Mmmmf.

Meanwhile, Novell have weighed in on the issue, and pulled no punches.

    http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html

Amongst other things, they state that SCO doesn't own the rights to 
System V, only the rights to use and distribute it: Novell owns the 
paperwork. They also have Very Nasty Things to say about SCO's handling 
of their case, plus a few ripper quotes like:

    It is time to substantiate that claim, or recant the sweeping
    and unsupported allegation made in your letter. Absent such
    action, it will be apparent to all that SCO's true intent is to
    sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Linux in order to extort
    payments from Linux distributors and users.

...but one thing at the start of the letter is probably much more  
important:

    Novell recently announced some important Linux initiatives.
    These include an upcoming NetWare version based on the Linux
    kernel, as well as collaboration and resource management
    solutions for Linux.

    Put simply, Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the
    open source development community. This support will increase
    over time.

Novell's stock rose (http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NOVL&d=2b) a tad, 
SCO's took a 24% hit (http://au.finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SCOX&d=2b) in 
about 3 hours. Oops. (-:

SCO's response (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030528/law059_1.html) said 
that they weren't relying on copyright or trademark, but on "contract 
rights" and that "SCO's complaint specifically alleges breach of 
contract, and SCO intends to protect and enforce all of the contracts 
that the company has with more than 6,000 licensees."

What contract does SCO have with, say, RedHat? They claim that RedHat is 
- and all Linux users are - at risk of suit, but how, without a 
contract? This is going from loony to incomprehensible.

Cheers; Leon