[olug] SCOx Sues A Customer

[Sean Kelly]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 09:57:18PM -0600, Phil Brutsche wrote:
> Jeff Hinrichs wrote:
> >FreeBSD [...] fought AT&T some time ago and prevailed

I am not closely following the SCO affair, but I'll take a shot at replying
to this.

At one point, SCO said they believed that "UNIX System V provided the basic
building blocks for all subsequent computer operating systems," and "there
may or may not be issues" with FreeBSD.

There is not, and never has been, System V code in BSD. BSD was started
around V6, not V5.

See http://www.daemon.org/bsd-releases/misc/USL-lawsuit

And here are some legal documents:
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.htm 

> <potentially faulty understanding of history>
> Actually, UC Berkeley did, which is where 4.4BSD Lite (Lite 2?) came 
> from.  386BSD re-implemented the missing files from 4.4BSD Lite, and 
> Free/Net BSD took off from there.

4.4BSD-Lite2 was a bugfix release of 4.4BSD-Lite.

Check out /usr/share/misc/bsd-family-tree on the FreeBSD box nearest you.
Quite interesting.

> </potentially faulty understanding of history>

> But anyways... you think that's gonna stop 'em?  Many of SCOs claims 
> against Linux are backed by questionable logic (logic contradicted by 
> AT&T's "successor in interest", Novell) and they've taken on what is 
> arguably one of the biggest companies in the industry (IBM) to try to 
> get those claims validated.

The final settlement was not public, so it is hard to say what legal
grounds exist to prevent SCO from coming after BSD. However, this statement
comes from Jordan Hubbard replying to someone asking where to find the
settlement informatioN:

     You can't.  A provision of the settlement agreement was that
     none of the signatories could publish the settlement agreement.
     If I remember correctly, Chris Demetriou was the signatory for
     NetBSD, Rob Kolstad was the signatory for BSD/OS and I was the
     signatory for FreeBSD.  The agreement was pretty clear on the
     fact that by signing the agreement and putting the mutual
     lawsuits behind us, Novell agreed that anyone based on 4.4Lite2
     going forward would be free and clear.

And from M. Warner Losh:

     The settlement terms specifically state that SCO cannot sue anybody
     who makes a release based on 4.4-LITE.  The settlement agreement is
     BINDING on both parties.  SCO cannot revoke it, and will have a hell
     of a legal fight if they try.

> They've also made noises about going after *BSD and Apple (they've 
> imported Free & NetBSD code for different subsystems) after this "Linux 
> business" is through.

Since Apple code is derived from NetBSD and FreeBSD, and since FreeBSD and
NetBSD are derived from 4.4BSD-Lite, Apple should be in the clear.

> <sarcasm> By golly, they implement the same standards!  They MUST have 
> stolen our IP! </sarcasm>  (No, seriously.  That's one of the arguments 
> they used in the court filings)
> 
> Do you really think a little itsy-bitsy 10-year-old judgement is gonna 
> make them think twice about re-opening that case and pursuing *BSD, or 
> anyone else?

Who can say? They can open the can of worms if they want, but they might
hang themselves even more than they are doing now with the whole Linux
affair. Remembeer that court cases in the past still have associated
paperwork, so there is definate evidence that the previous settlement is
binding on both parties. It would almost be entertaining to see them try
it, though I think I'd prefer they didn't.

> *IF* they survive IBM, who will try try to go after next?
AutoZone. Just as well, though. I hate their commercials.

-- 
Sean Kelly         | PGP KeyID: D2E5E296
smkelly at zombie.org | http://www.zombie.org