* Novell, SCO in war of words over Linux
Novell fired back last week at SCO’s ongoing anti-Linux campaign, calling the former Linux vendor’s claims on the operating system invalid.
Novell, which recently announced a new strategy around Linux support, dismissed SCO’s assertions that SCO owns the Unix System V patents and copyrights. It also undercut the vendor’s assertions that Unix code was copied into Linux.
In a letter to SCO CEO Darl McBride posted on Novell’s Web site, Novell CEO Jack Messman raised these questions:
“What specific code was copied from UNIX System V? Where can we find this code in Linux? Who copied this code? Why does this alleged copying infringe SCO’s intellectual property?”
All good questions, which SCO has yet to answer, Novell says.
Messman went on to point out that, because of Linux’s open source nature, SCO could easily take any freely available Linux distribution off the ‘Net and point out where the stolen code sits in the Linux kernel.
Additionally, Novell’s Messman asserted that even if there were Unix System V patent infringement involved with Linux, the patents are not SCO’s to claim. While SCO did purchase the Unix source code from Novell in 1997, Messman says, “contrary to SCO’s assertions, SCO is not the owner of the UNIX copyrights. Not only would a quick check of U.S. Copyright Office records reveal this fact, but a review of the asset transfer agreement between Novell and SCO confirms it.”
Messman also addressed what he thought was the heart of the matter in terms of SCO’s suite: “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.”
This must have hit close to home, because SCO replied in a public statement soon after the Novell release. Specifically, the vendor said:
“SCO owns the contract rights to the UNIX operating system. SCO has the contractual right to prevent improper donations of UNIX code, methods or concepts into Linux by any UNIX vendor.
“Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers. Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights.
“SCO’s lawsuit against IBM does not involve patents or copyrights. SCO’s complaint specifically alleges breach of contract.”
Whatever the outcome of this legalese brinkmanship, it’s apparent that no one is taking the SCO suit lightly.
