|
Exhibit 3 - SCO's Document Request |
|
Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 05:45 PM EST
|
Here is SCO's Document Request, Exhibit 3, with thanks to Peter Smith and Ned Ulbricht.
**************************************************************************
The SCO Group
v.
International
Business Machines Corp.
Civil Docket Case No.
03-CV-0294
The Honorable Dale A.
Kimball
Magistrate Brooke C.
Wells
U.S. District Court –
District of Utah
350 South Main
Street, Room 150
Salt Lake City, UT
84104
Hearing on all
Pending Motions
No
|
SCO’s Document
Request
|
IBM’s Production
|
|
First Request for
Production
|
|
1
|
All documents concerning or relating to any agreements
entered into with
AT&T relating to UNIX, including but not limited to the agreements
attached
to the First Amended Complaint.
|
Partial
|
2
|
All versions or iterations of AIX source code,
modifications, methods and/or
derivative works since May 1999, including but not limited to version 4.3 and
above.
|
Copy of CD label
only
|
3
|
All versions or iterations of Sequent Dynix source code,
derivative works,
modifications and/or methods since January 1, 1999 to date.
|
|
4
|
All documents concerning IBM's efforts, if any, to
maintain the
confidentiality of UNIX source code, derivative works, modifications, and/or
methods.
|
Partial
|
5
|
All documents concerning IBM's efforts, if any, to
maintain the
confidentiality of AIX source code, derivative works, modifications, and/or
methods.
|
Partial
|
6
|
All documents concerning IBM's efforts, if any, to
maintain the
confidentiality of Sequent Dynix source code, derivative works,
modifications,
and/or methods.
|
Partial
|
7
|
All documents concerning IBM's efforts, if any, to
restrict distribution of
Unix source code, derivative works, modifications, and/or methods.
|
Partial
|
8
|
All documents concerning IBM's efforts, if any, to
restrict distribution of
AIX source code, derivative works, modifications, and/or methods.
|
Partial
|
9
|
All documents concerning IBM's efforts, if any, to
restrict distribution of
Sequent Dynix source code, derivative works, modifications, and/or methods.
|
Partial
|
10
|
All documents concerning Prerequisite Source Licenses,
including but not
limited to all instances in which IBM required persons or entities to obtain
a
Prerequisite Source License under paragraph 2.2(a) of its contract with its
customers.
|
|
11
|
All contributions including but not limited to source
code, binary code, derivative works, methods, and modifications by IBM to
Open
Source Development Lab, Linus Torvalds, Red Hat or any other entity without
confidentiality restrictions.
|
|
12
|
All documents that identify all persons or entities to
whom IBM has provided
UNIX source code, derivative works, modifications and/or methods.
|
Partial
|
13
|
All documents that identify all persons or entities to
whom IBM has provided
AIX source code, derivative works, modifications and/or methods.
|
Partial
|
14
|
All documents that identify all persons or entities to
whom IBM has provided
Sequent Dynix source code, derivative works, modifications and/or methods.
|
|
15
|
All documents that identify all persons at IBM and Sequent
who had access to
UNIX source code, derivative works, modifications and/or methods.
|
|
16
|
All documents that identify all persons at IBM and Sequent
who had access to
AIX source code, derivative works, modifications and/or methods.
|
|
17
|
All documents that identify all persons at IBM and Sequent
who had access to
Sequent Dynix source code, derivative works, modifications and/or methods.
|
|
18
|
All documents, agreements and correspondence between IBM
or any person or
entity under IBM's control and Linus Torvalds including, but not limited to,
those with or copied to Sam Palmisano.
|
|
19
|
All documents, agreements and correspondence with Open
Source Development
Lab.
|
|
20
|
All documents, agreements and correspondence with Red Hat.
|
Partial
|
21
|
All documents, agreements and correspondence with SuSe.
|
Partial
|
22
|
All documents, agreements and correspondence between IBM
and Novell
regarding UNIX, including but not limited to all correspondence with Jack
Messman, Chris Stone and/or Novell's counsel.
|
Partial
|
23
|
All documents, agreements and correspondence between IBM
and Santa Cruz
Operation regarding UNIX.
|
Partial
|
24
|
All documents, agreements and correspondence between IBM
and Caldera.
|
Partial
|
25
|
All documents, agreements and correspondence between IBM
and The SCO Group.
|
|
26
|
All documents identifying all IBM personnel who are or
were employed or
working at the Linux Technology Center.
|
|
27
|
All documents identifying all IBM personnel who are or
were employed or
working at the Linux Center of Competency.
|
|
28
|
All documents concerning Project Monterey.
|
Partial
|
29
|
All documents concerning any UNIX source code, derivative
works,
modifications or methods disclosed by IBM to any third party or to the
public.
|
Partial
|
30
|
All documents concerning any AIX source code, derivative
works,
modifications or methods disclosed by IBM to any third party or to the
public.
|
Partial
|
31
|
All documents concerning any Sequent Dynix source code,
derivative works,
modifications or methods disclosed by IBM to any third party or to the
public.
|
|
32
|
All documents concerning any UNIX source code, derivative
works,
modifications or methods found in Linux, open source, or the public domain.
|
Partial
|
33
|
All documents concerning any AIX source code, derivative
works,
modifications or methods found in Linux, open source, or the public domain.
|
Partial
|
34
|
All documents concerning any Sequent Dynix source code,
derivative works,
modifications or methods found in Linux, open source, or the public domain.
|
Partial
|
35
|
All documents concerning any contributions to Linux or to
open source made
by IBM and/or Sequent.
|
Partial
|
36
|
All documents sufficient to show IBM's organizational and
personnel
structure, including but not limited to organizational charts, flow charts
and
personnel directories.
|
|
37
|
All documents concerning any statement, affidavit,
declaration, or opinion
in IBM's possession relating to contributions by IBM to open source,
including
but not limited to those statements identified in the Complaint made by
Messers. [sic]
Mills, LeBlanc and Strassmeyer.
|
|
38
|
All documents concerning the Open Source Developer's
Class, including any
guidelines relating thereto.
|
|
39
|
All documents concerning export controls for all UNIX
source code,
derivative works, modifications or methods contributed to open source,
including
all portions of AIX, and Dynix and their derivative works, modifications, or
methods.
|
Partial
|
40
|
All documents concerning IBM's use of Intel processors
prior to January 1,
1998.
|
|
41
|
All documents concerning IBM's use of Intel processors
after January 1,
1998.
|
|
42
|
All documents concerning IBM's contributions to
development of the 2.4 and
2.5 Linux Kernel.
|
|
43
|
All documents concerning IBM's First Affirmative Defense
that the Complaint
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
|
|
44
|
All documents concerning IBM's "Second Defense" that
Plaintiff's claims are
barred because IBM has not engaged in any unlawful or unfair business
practices,
and IBM's conduct was privileged, performing the exercise of an absolute
right,
proper and/or justified.
|
|
45
|
All documents concerning IBM's Third Affirmative Defense
that Plaintiff
lacks standing to pursue its claims against IBM.
|
|
46
|
All documents concerning IBM's Fourth Affirmative Defense
that Plaintiff's
claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of
limitations.
|
|
47
|
All documents concerning IBM's Fifth Affirmative Defense
that Plaintiff's
claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the economic loss doctrine or the
independent duty doctrine.
|
|
48
|
All documents concerning IBM's Sixth Affirmative Defense
that Plaintiff's
claims are barred by the doctrines of laches and delay.
|
|
49
|
All documents concerning IBM's Seventh Affirmative Defense
that Plaintiff's
claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, estoppel and unclean hands.
|
|
50
|
All documents concerning IBM's Eighth Affirmative Defense
that Plaintiff's
claims are, in whole or in part, preempted by federal law.
|
|
51
|
All documents concerning IBM's Ninth Affirmative Defense
that Plaintiff's
claims are improperly venued in this district.
|
|
52
|
All documents used, referred to, identified, or relied upon
in responding to
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories.
|
|
|
|
Authored by: grouch on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 05:55 PM EST |
PJ,
If you're taking time to check comments occasionally, the events since Thursday
are pretty overwhelming to a lot of us. It needs your analysis and
summarization. There are plenty of volunteers to transcribe or format
transcriptions as html, but there is only one you.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 06:01 PM EST |
IBM's contribution - 'Copy of CD label only'
GUILTY!!!
Nick :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST |
Given the average commonsense employed in SCO legal statements, most of the
requests for documents relating to the nth Affirmative Defense could have been
fulfilled easily. All you'd have to do is post all SCO's legal documents back to
them with red marks by all the factual and linguistic inaccuracies. For good
measure you could stick a big "2/10. Try harder" at the bottom.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:30 PM EST |
I have read various comments about WHY Darl keeps on about what is obvously a
wrong premise to us.
Unfortunately, I am a little the same on some issues, and what it boils down to
is a moral issue.
If you believe yourself to be right, it will not matter if the entire world
tells you "you are wrong", morally you will maintain your position in
the face of all adversity.
What is scary here is that he seems to have convinced others, who should be
screaming "you're wrong", to make the same stand.
--------------------
OT OT, spelling.
Just something that bothers me while reading these comments.
To have/be lost is spelt 'LOSE' not 'loose'(to not fit tightly)
'Your' means ownership, as in "your on your own", and 'You're' means
you are, as in "you're very good at this"
I note the above because I like reading Groklaw and find it frustrating to have
my brain do a 'trip' avery time it comes across these spellings.
Rob Golding (Another Aussie who is interested)
I opened my mouth and proved them right.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- OT, Understand Darls Stand? - Authored by: eamacnaghten on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:45 PM EST
- OT, Understand Darls Stand? - Authored by: SmyTTor on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 08:15 PM EST
- OT, OT Spelling.... - Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 09:30 PM EST
- Spelling? You are guilty too - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 01:46 AM EST
- OT, Understand Darls Stand? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 02:20 AM EST
- OT OT, spelling. - OOPS - Authored by: golding on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 05:48 AM EST
- OT, Understand Darls Stand? Spelling - Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 10:30 AM EST
- Might be believable, except - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 12:26 PM EST
- OT, Spelling - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:48 PM EST |
Nice. I'm sure that not unnecessarily burdensome.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:57 PM EST |
Curious:
I thought IBM provided the source code to the most recent versions of AIX and
Dynix.
As I understand it, SCO already has the source to the older vesions from the
work on project monteray.
Even if they didn't, I thought the AIX and Dynix source code was widely
available to almost any licensee - mostly so that one can make modifications and
recompile.
I'm not sure what SCO is asking for that they don't already have access to.
If AIX or Dynix code was ever included in Linux, shouldn't SCO at least be able
to show what that code was from any of these readily available sources?
I am missing something?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 08:04 PM EST |
Several of these stick out.
- 11 All contributions including,
but not limited to, source code, binary code, derivative works, methods,
and
modifications by IBM to Open Source Development Lab, Linus Torvalds, Red Hat
or any other entity without confidentiality restrictions.
This
request is NOT specific to Linux. In the 50+ years IBM has been writing software
there must have been millions of lines of code that meet this request that have
nothing to do with Linux or UNIX.
- 24 All documents, agreements and
correspondence between IBM and Caldera.
- 25 All documents, agreements
and correspondence between IBM and The SCO Group.
they are asking for all
documents sent from IBM to Caldera/SCOG for from Caldera/SCOG to IBM. SCOG does
not have a copy of this already? Sloppy record keeping on their part I would
think?
- 36 All documents sufficient to show IBM's organizational and
personnel structure, including but not limited to organizational charts, flow
charts and
personnel directories.
SCOG wants a list of all 340,000 IBM
employees and their reporting structure? This very much meets the definition
of
a "fishing expedition".
- 37 All documents concerning any
statement,
affidavit, declaration, or opinion in IBM's possession relating to
contributions by IBM to open source, including
but not limited to those
statements identified in the Complaint made by Messrs. Mills, LeBlanc
and
Strassmeyer.
Literally thousands of IBMers (e.g sales reps) have
made
statements about IBM's contributions to open source. IBM is justifiably
proud of these contributions. Another fishing expedition?
- 40 All
documents concerning IBM's use of Intel processors prior to January 1,
1998.
- 41 All documents concerning IBM's use of Intel processors after
January 1, 1998.
The number of documents published by IBM or internal to IBM
which mention Intel procesors boggles the mind. Just doing a Google site search
on www.ibm.com and Intel found 6230 web pages alone! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 08:12 PM EST |
According to Ryan Tibbitts' Declaration of January 12, 2004:
12 ... Several versions of source code were examined, including:
12.1.6 Sequent dynix/ptx source code, version 4.6.1
15. Further, we have only one CD of dynix/ptx source code that was produced by
IBM, and this CD only contains a limited history of dynix/ptx releases. It was
therefore not possible to directly compare IBM's contributions to Linux with
another likely source of those contributions, namely the missing versions of
dynix/ptx.
From SCO's Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Compel
(4 November 2003)
Subject to, as limited by, and without waiving the foregoing general and
specific objections, IBM will produce a copy of the source code for the base
operating system of dynix Version 4.1.10, dynix Version 4.5.3, and dynix Version
4.6.1
The blank in the "IBM's Production" box relating to dynix/ptx implies
nothing has been received from IBM.
Possible explanations :
1) "we have only one CD of dynix/ptx source code that was produced by
IBM" - the "produced by IBM" in some way is different from
"IBM's Production" - eg it means that the code was written by IBM, but
not received from IBM. (Unlikely - where did it come from in that case)
2) Timing difference - ie the code was passed to SCO after Exhibit 3 was
prepared, but before the work covered by the Tibbitts declaration was done.
(Unlikely - Exhibit 3 would probably refer to a date later than the Tibbitts
Declaration)
3) SCO got it wrong.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 08:22 PM EST |
Since SCO love paper give all the source code on paper punch tape.
Enjoy,
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 08:42 PM EST |
Ummm people. It's what 8:30 or so EST. We haven't heard from Darl in a few
days now. Are we sure he's all right? (I won't suggest that we call his house,
that would be WRONG. Put that phone down, NOW!)
You don't suppose Judge Wells scolded the SCOundrels' lawyers for all of Darl's
mouthiness do you? Maybe Dark Darl is just under the weather. Maybe he's busy
protecting the SCOundrels' IP and doesn't have time to talk to the press.
This is not like the Darl I've come to know. I'm worried something may be
wrong.
The Flatlander[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 08:49 PM EST |
> 40. All documents concerning IBM's use of Intel
processors prior to January 1, 1998.
Are SCO thinking of making claims to the origional IBM PC
or something?
I would assume that because they ask for ALL before Jan
1, 1998 this would include the original specs for the
IBM PC????
I maybe incorrect here but didn't early IBM keyboards
have Intel 4004(?) processors in them? Would they be
expected to include this information?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: gribnick on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 10:07 PM EST |
So let's say the judge tosses one or more of SCO "complaints" and with
them I'd imagine this list would need to get significantly trimmed as well?
What happens if they all get tossed? This list gets tossed with it? Then we are
left with IBM's counterclaims. Or was part of this list stemming from those
counterclaims as well? At that point I'd imagine the burden of "proof"
would shift to IBM and while not an onorous burden (thanks to Groklaw's quote
database and Darl's mouth), IBM would be in the position of having to cough up
much of what SCO wanted first??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 11:42 PM EST |
I wonder ... It is starting to appear that SCO wants everything that IBM ever
produced in software or gave away. What will SCO do with the information? Seems
they want to claim all of IBM's Copyrights for SCO's... . IBM owns and keeps the
source code of AIX (at present)- and now SCO wants it - so that they can (not)
sell it, but IBM can not sell the software. Theft by deception - or by the
law(yers)?
IANAL[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: plex on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 12:27 AM EST |
Okay, it's late and I'm trying to associate SCO's requests in Exhibit 3 with
various points in their incoherent rants.
I am stumped by the following, though: 23,24,25 correspondence with old SCO,
Caldera, and TSG - shouldn't they have these? And 40,41 - All Intel chips? The
IPSC-860? the 8088? Everything from the birth of the IBM PC through today? Plus
all the side projects? I can't possibly have interpreted this correctly.
Help, anybody?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- fishing - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 01:14 AM EST
|
Authored by: GrueMaster on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 02:05 AM EST |
They're asking for all documents prior to 1/1/98 and all documents after 1/1/98
(basicly all documents period) "concerning IBM's use of Intel
processors"? Don't they know that IBM is the Largest customer of the
Largest chip manufacturer in the world? Every single processor Intel makes, IBM
designs at least 100 systems for, they want documents for?
Judge: IBM, what is a reasonable amount of time to comply with this?
IBM: 2350? We need to grow a massive amount of trees to produce enough paper to
make copies for the court & SCO. Also, we will need to build a storage
facility to manage this, and I think the Austrailian Outback might have enough
room.
GrueMaster
"You've entered a dark place. You are likely to be eaten by a Grue!"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mark Levitt on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 05:09 AM EST |
One of the things that annoys me most about SCO's claims is that they are trying
to convince everyone that UNIX methods are secret.
They want to claim that the only way Linux could possible have supported large
numbers of CPUs was by stealing it.
What they seem to want to do is erase the years of public research on UNIX.
Pretend the conferences, technical articles, source code sharing, and book
publishing never happened.
They talk about Intel expetise. Do they think Intel, just possibly, might go to
great lengths to educate others on how to program SMP code on their products?
They talk about "Intel" as if it is some sort of cosmic phenomena that
only they have mastered.
The thing is, programming is *engineering*. The principles behind SMP are well
understood, just like the princeples of bridge building are well understood.
Spinlocks, for example, are a well understood concept. Every modern OS that does
SMP will have spinlocks.
Windows NT/2000 has them
UNIX has them
Linux has them
BeOS had them
BSD has them
Just like civil engineers, when designing a bridge, know they can select from
methods like "suspension" or "cantilever", software
engineers have a range of well understood tools at their disposal.
Yes, most Linux programmers did not have access to 16-way Intel machines. But,
some Linux programers did. And, more to the point, a few more had access to
16-way Solaris machines.
And guess what? If you can do SMP on a 16 processor SPARC box, you can do it on
a 16 processor Intel box.
Why? Becuase the principles are the same. Because all CPUs that want to support
SMP will have certain features.
For example, in order to impliment a spinlock, you must be able to write code
that can test the value of a variable and possibly change the value in a single
operation, without another part of the OS or another program changing the value
between the time you test it and the time you change it.
So, guess what? Programmers writing a spinlock will look up the CPU
documentation to see how to use the "test and set" feature. It's not
magic. It's not something they have to learn by trial and error. It's just
engineering.
And by the way, here's the results of just ten minutes of searching for UNIX and
SMP. Hardly a big secret:
UNIX(R) Systems for Modern Architectures: Symmetric Multiprocessing and Caching
for Kernel Programmers
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0201633388/102-8416419-0766523?v=g
lance
In Search of Clusters
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0138997098/102-8416419-0766523?v=g
lance
UNIX Internals: The New Frontiers
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0131019082/102-8416419-0766523?v=g
lance[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: spiff on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 05:20 AM EST |
h++p://news.independent.co.uk/digital/features/story.jsp?story=489074
Rather less biased and more responsible article on MyDoom from The Independent
(UK newspaper).
still gets the SCO Unix ownership thing wrong tho'. if someone has a good
summary dissection of that, let me know and I'll send it to the writer at the
Independent.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 05:26 AM EST |
I've been away the last day so i might have missed it, but....
Did SCO have that press conference after the trial like they said they were
going to do?
Cheers,
Greebo (Can't log in - left my password at work!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonimuse on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 05:33 AM EST |
I was curious about the significance of the Jan 01/98 pivot point for
document requests from IBM by SCO and went looking for information on the
net.Found a PDF formatted mapping of Unix, Linux, AIX etc. at the following:
http://mulot.free.fr./doc/arborescence-historic-unix.pdf
I don't know the origin of the actual document or the source information on
which it is based but it does indicate that Jan 01/98 was approximately the time
that code from OpenServer 5.0.4 was incorporated into UnixWare 7.UnixWare 7 code
was then contrbuted to Project Monterey a few months later and Monterey merged
into IBM's AIX after Monterey was discontinued.
Most interesting are the indications that Linux code was contributed to
Project Monterey on one occasion (Linux 2.2.14 or 2.2.15 binary compatibility -
checked alternate source)in late 1999/early 2000 and then in July/Aug 2000
Linux 2.2.16 code contributed to UnixWare 7.1.1 and again in Sept 2000 Linux
2.4.0 test8 code was contributed to UnixWare.Don't know what the last two
contributions consisted of.
The map only traces up to the fall of 2001 and does not format properly in
Adobe pdf. but is fine in Linux.
If I'm not completely mistaken these Linux code contributions TO SCO and
Monterey are very close to those that SCO mentions in their filings against
IBM.
It looks,in fact,like SCO has it backwards.Their code was not contributed
to Linux, Linux code was contributed to them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: belzecue on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 05:40 AM EST |
Another sue-them pump and dump in progress? You be the
judge.
While Linux lawsuits gobble up the IT community's
mindshare, a lesser-known legal action is being fought seeking billions of
dollars from five PC vendors. Patriot Scientific, a small, San Diego-based
seller of embedded microprocessors for automotive and scientific applications,
is suing Sony, Fujitu, Matsushita, Toshiba, and NEC, alleging infringement of a
Patriot patent for what it calls 'fundamental microprocessor technology.'"
• slashdot background info
• straight from the horse's mouth
• the
paper trail
• key
financial details
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 06:33 AM EST |
I'm having some problems understanding exactly why the AIX source would help
SCO. Correct me if I get any of this wrnog:
1. SCO has the source code to UNIX
2. SCO claims that IBM contributed UNIX code to Linux
3. Therefore, any misapproprated code would show up in the UNIX source that SCO
has
4. Suppose IBM wrote some original AIX code (ie. modified the System V code).
Then IBM would own that code, not SCO. They could then contribute it to whoever
they liked under whatever license they liked. That code would show up in AIX but
not in anything SCO has access to.
In other words, anything in AIX that SCO doesn't have isn't owned by SCO anyway,
right?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Mark_Edwards on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 07:13 AM EST |
Hi all,
At what point do the courts look at the various
documents to see what IBM is allowed to do with it's own
code that has been bolted on to Unix? As we have all
seen in amendment-X it seems to say that IBM will own
their own code, to do with as they want, as long as is
does not contain anything from the SOFTWARE PRODUCT this
being the UNIX code that SCO licence out to people. Can
Judge Wells after reading these documents tell SCO that
what SCO is requesting is not relevant or do we have to
wait until 2005 and Judge Kimble to decide on the
wording and what this means to the case?
Sorry if this has been asked before but there is now so
much information on Groklaw :)
thanks
Mark
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: soronlin on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 09:35 AM EST |
Is it possible for Judge Kimball to issue a ruling on the definition of
"derived" at this point? Obviously it would require input from the two
parties, but it is a point of law, so there would be no need for a jury, and it
shouldn't take very long to come to a secure conclusion. Getting
"derived" sorted out now would clear the way for Judge Wells to break
the impass.
IBM would want something along the lines of "The definition of derived,
notwithstanding the AT&T license and associated documents, shall have its
standard meaning in copyright law."
Whereas SCOG would want "The definition of derived notwithstanding
established copyright law is redefined by the AT&T licence and associated
documents in such a manner that any and all additions to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT
become part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and their subiquent use becomes a use of
SOFTWARE PRODUCT."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: spiff on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 09:51 AM EST |
From the OSI site, and as per the link below:
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween9.html#id2791248
The phrase "Unix, which it now owns" is a deliberate SCO lie. There
are many Unixes, SCO owns just Unixware and SCO Openserver. Quoting from the OSI
document :
"Unix is a generic technical term used to describe a family of over a
hundred operating systems"
The trademark is certainly not owned by SCO: again, from the OSI article:
"SCO does not even own the Unix trademark, and they cannot be be ignorant
of The Open Group, since both SCO and IBM are members. IBM is one of five
"Sponsors", and SCO is one of 138 "Regular Members" — IBM's
membership in The Open Group significantly outranks SCO's."
So SCO doesn't own Unix at all. In any sense. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Great link - Authored by: trox on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 11:29 PM EST
|
Authored by: maco on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 10:06 AM EST |
... IBM has not engaged in any unlawful or unfair business practices, and
IBM's conduct was privileged, performing the exercise of an absloute right,
proper and/or justified
So they want all documents &tc showing IBM
was doing normal business? Isn't this like, duh, 99.9999% of every piece
of paper, email, anything, at IBM? Or does this mean that, of 50,000+ laws out
there, IBM shows proof that each was followed?
Is it me, or does this seem a
little bit wide in scope? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PeteS on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 10:19 AM EST |
Eweek is running a story Vendors Need to
Rethink Licenses by Jim Rapoza.
When we see the SCOFUD about '...do not
provide indemnity...' etc., we have noted that neither SCO nor M$ offer any
protection against known issues in their own code; that is the thrust of the
article and it's nice to see this get a little more attention in the broader
press.
--- Recursion: n. See Recursion
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 11:01 AM EST |
Pardon my ignorance but since Caldera has
accepted
certification from Open Group in 16 May 2003, therefore accepting TMLA, has
attacked its own thesis on who owns UNIX. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 11:40 AM EST |
SCO's base argument hinges on:
"However, IBM may not distribute Source
Copies to Company A for
purposes
of making modifications to adapt the
Sublicensed Products [AIX] as a general
operating systtem for Company A's
general computer hardware system.
(Emphasis added)."
Here, SCO has
"clarified" the meanint of Sublicensed Products to be "AIX" --
but in truth,
the original language defined Sublicensed Products as SYSV.
As has been
widely noted, SCO is attempting to claim that because AIX as a
whole is a
dervied work of SYSV, then any portion of AIX must be treated as a
derived
work, even if that portion was developed independently.
As many others have
also noted, the ATT-IBM side
letter
explicitly clarifies ownership in exactly this
situation:
"2. Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and
derivative
works prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership
of any
portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such
modification or derivative work remains with us."
However, I suspect
that SCO will claim that while the above language clarifies
ownership,
it does not change the fact that all portions of AIX must
be treated as a
derived work. IBM, I suspect they will argue, may own the
modifications, but
those modifications are still subject to the language in the
original agreement
-- i.e. the agreement supercedes usual "derived work"
copyright law.
My
question to the legally-informed: is the line of argument in the above
paragraph likely to hold water? I'm fairly well-versed in copyright law,
but am
not certain if "ownership" generally implies "free from contractural
constraints limiting use" in the eyes of the law. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: the_flatlander on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 12:11 PM EST |
So, has anyone heard from the Judge in Delaware, lately? I wonder if she keeps
up with the news. If she doesn't rule soon, it will be too late.
The SCOundrels' case self-destructed far faster than I think anyone expected.
Two, or is it three, appearences in court, and they are all but done.
The Flatlander
Yep. I'm just waiting for that little pop-up timer thingy to pop out of one of
the SCOundrels' Lawyers. Then we'll know for sure the case is finished.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: JeR on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST |
"2 - All versions or iterations of AIX source code, modifications, methods
and/or
derivative works since May 1999, including but not limited to version 4.3
and
above. - Copy of CD label only"
Hey, they asked for all versions and
iterations of source code, not for all source code in each version and
iteration. SCO is lucky to have got something better than a simple list of
versions and iterations on this point! :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bruce_s on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 01:30 PM EST |
IIRC the 80186 was suppsed be be slightly buggy.
Bruce S. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 04:52 PM EST |
The typos are my fault.
Here are the typos I introduced, that I can spot:
(Indexed by document request)
Nos 5,6: "IBMS's" should be "IBM's"
No 11: Extra commas: ", but not limited to," should be " but not
limited to"
No 37: "thos" should be "those"
No 37: "Messrs." should be "Messers. [sic]"
[No 41: "concered" should be "concerned"] FIXED
(No 44: Note that "Second Defense" is in the pdf document.) NOT A BUG
No 44: "absloute" should be "absolute"
No 47: "Defens" should be "Defense"
No 52: "refered" should be "referred"
I'm suitably embarrassed. I didn't think to spell-check the document, instead I
tried to reproduce what I saw in the pdf.
Sorry, folks.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 07:00 PM EST |
Trademark License
Agreement (TMLA)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ChrisP on Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 09:34 PM EST |
I know it's a bit late to say this...
The original overbroad requests for documents have already been objected to by
IBM and discussed between the two groups of lawyers. Some of the requests have
already been limited by mutual agreement. See http://sco.tuxrocks.com/ Docket 79
and Exhibits ("IBM's Memorandum in Opposition to SCO's Motion to Compel
Discovery (November 19, 2003)").
For instance, from Mark J. Heise: "Response to Request Nos. 40-41. We have
agreed to accept a limitation on this request so that it relates only to the use
of UNIX, AIX, Dynix or Linux on Intel processors. You advised that you will
check on this and get back to us."
And as for partial compliance, well, could a company the size of IBM even know
itself that it had found everything and finished? :)
---
SCO^WM$^WIBM^W dammit, no-one paid me to say this.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|