-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, Boyd Lynn Gerber wrote:
> > > Is SCO really dead? Reading some recent posts and people putting up
> > > licence codes etc I wonder is it the end of the road in terms of
> > > Unixware and openserver?
> >
> > Personally I think all the gluem and doom is a bit much. As I see things.
> > The orignal filing was because IBM did not honor the contract.
>
> And you know this how? So far, I don't think any information that shows IBM
> violated its contract has been made public. Are you thinking of the Monterey
> project contracts, which are NOT part of the lawsuit (and won't ever be) or
> the original contacts with USL?

The Monterey Contract is at the heart of this dispute. Look at the
timing. I see "misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts" and
_not_ direct copyright claims to be what this is all about. Look at the
original filing. SCO was referring to IBM's new Linux product line.
Before that, it didn't run on big iron and other solutions.
IBM was _forbidden_ from doing that in contract.

You see, the _cornerstone_ of SCO's lawsuit is that IBM was violating
several sections of the Monterey contract -- including the Non-Compete --
_before_ Caldera bought them. That's why they said "misappropriation of
Unix code, methods or concepts" and _not_ "copyright infringement."

If you read the final items #50-55, it's the meat.
Everything else is that "IBM helped this, IBM helped that."

SCO _had_ to claim IBM violated their Non-Compete by helping Linux.
But they did _not_ have to prove any actual copyright infringement.

I mean, what did you expect SCO to say? "Oh, IBM violated our
Non-compete by helping Linux, but they didn't do anything"???

Get real! The problem was that other than ESR, Linus and Perens and
other people who have deal with major contract issues with major
corporations who clearly saw this as a contract dispute (until 2003 May)
- -- people got "rabid" about SCO's claims.

SCO _had_ to say IBM helped Linux, which was in violation of many
sections of the Monterey contract. That's why you got the wording you
did -- but *NOT* "copyright infringement."

Remember, IBM and SCO had a _written_contract_ to develop a new 64-bit
UNIX, and that included many "protections" for both IBM and SCO.

IBM has _not_ made many GPL donations! The few they have are IPL (which
isn't even quite MPL), and far less than what HP, Red Hat, Sun and --
even more so -- Caldera-SCO!

In fact, IBM has often caused _major_ IP headaches for the Linux kernel
team. Their finally opening 500 patents wasn't so much of a "donation"
for Linux, but to finally get things added to the kernel they _needed_
for their own product line!

Umm, last time I checked, 100% of IBM's software -- outside of their
limited donations to the Linux kernel (which are often _half-baked_ --
like the JFS filesystem that came from OS/2, not Monterey/AIX 5L), has
_not_ be GPL. Heck, very limited has been IPL. Most _everything_
they've spent $1B on has been _proprietary_ -- including the latest
$100M for Notes.

HP has donated far more enterprise management tools into and build
around GPL, LGPL and other things.

Red Hat continues to be a completely GPL-based company.

Caldera-SCO wanted to GPL much of Monterey, something IBM would and
could not allow -- because it would allow Linux to take away from its
AIX 5L sales. Yes, that seems hypocritical of SCO now, but it's true!

Even Sun has done far more for Linux -- both GPL and open standards --
than IBM any day of the week, and continues to do so.

IBM is announcing money to develop virtually 100% _proprietary_
software, that runs on Linux. Even its Java licenses have so many
strings that I'd rather develop on Mono, which is GPL/LGPL/BSD
(tools/libs/class-lib).

IBM is _not_ about FLOSS. FLOSS is about open source.

IBM does things for their needs, IBM is leeching and not providing much.
I think people keep missing that -- the $1B did _not_ go to open source
development! Caldera was always pro-GPL, even after buying SCO, until the
lawsuit. In fact, I think that's what scared IBM to death in 2000.

SCO's statements in the 2003 March filing had to do with what
"protections" it had from IBM in the Monterey agreement. That's the
_only_ case SCO has.

I don't defend SCO for the 100% BS they've been spewing since 2003 May. In
fact, it was because the IT media and rabid Linux users that _mis-read_
SCO's case and thought they were claiming copyright infringement that SCO
found a "new avenue" to get money to make it to trial.

The IT media and rabid Linux users rolled out the red carpet for SCO.
If everyone in the Linux community would have listened to ESR, Linus,
Perens and people like myself, SCO would have *NEVER* been able to
convince the IT media and investors that it had a case on Linux outside
of the contract with IBM.

> Well, I recall one in San Jose in which workers accused IBM of failing
> to protect employees' health. Who won? IBM.
>
> > They win mostly
> > because they out last the people bringing the law suite.
>
> In the case I mention above, it went to a jury.

I am only talking about other companies sueing IBM for similar actions.

> > I think that in the end IBM is going to loose because they violated a
> > contract.
>
> And you know this how? Because SCO's execs told you this? Let's not forget the
> cases where SCO have shown code in fact look more like copyright violations by
> SCO than violations by others.

I did not say copyright violations. I said contract violations. The two
are different. Much of the copyright stuff is not clear. Although I can
not understand how Caldera would purchase UNIX without them. That is why
the amendment was added. It was to make it clear what was purchased.

> > SCO has the cost contained to see the case to the end.
>
> Does SCO? SCO had to put a bunch more money into the escrow account
> recently to pay for experts. Let's also not forget that Novell may have
> a claim on enough money to bankrupt SCO.

I do not doubt that. Novell made a very good manuver getting SCO to do
what they did. Now the whole issuse comes under UNITED LINUX. We will
have to wait and see what happens there. This is clear about copyright
which I do not claim to hold valid one way or an other. I am talking
purely about the contract.

> > So IBM will have to prove they did not violate the contract which they
> > did.
>
> Again, how do you know this?

Look at the orignal filing.

> Summary: I think you drank the cool-aid and the inevitable will happen!


Agreed.

- --
Boyd Gerber <gerberb@zenez.com>
ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/

iD8DBQFEtdMVVtBjDid73eYRAsdeAJ0S7zxnJn9VY1obi0gU9x IVPPlaVQCfYBUE
E5ZstohFhP90rsyrANXDpqc=
=iZIk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----