SCO's and Novell's documents offer details of the 1995 deal under which Novell sold its Unix business to SCO's predecessor.
The documents also are the basis for SCO's current claims to Linux and for Novell's belief that it can protect its customers from SCO's legal demands.
SCO is fighting with corporate users of Linux -- and the software industry at large -- and has engaged in a high-profile legal battle with IBM, all in an effort to establish its claim to fees for use of the open-source operating system.
SCO believes that Unix software was illegally moved into Linux and is demanding that companies that use Linux pay it licence fees. Novell is challenging the move by arguing it retains key Unix copyrights and offering legal protection for customers who buy its products, called SuSE Linux.
Both companies' Web sites now offer interested parties the opportunity to scrutinise the Asset Purchase Agreement from 1995, a crucial amendment to that contract.
SCO also released press materials issued when the company purchased its Unix assets from Novell. SCO asserts that the press release confirms that the company purchased the Unix intellectual property along with the Unix business and source code, among other things.
Novell released several recent letters to and from SCO regarding the auditing of SCO's use of Unix; Novell's assertion that IBM is permitted to release its enhancements to Unix as open-source software as long as it doesn't release the original Unix source code; and Novell's efforts to nullify SCO's move to cancel the Unix contracts of IBM and Silicon Graphics.
SCO believes that the Asset Purchase Agreement provided Novell with a Unix licence, but under the condition that Novell use the licensed technology only for internal purposes or for resale in bundled and integrated products sold by Novell that do not directly compete with Unix products marketed by SCO. SCO further maintains that a Novell Linux offering violates that part of the agreement.
However, in late December, Novell, which bought Unix from AT&T before selling at least some of the intellectual property to a SCO predecessor, disputed SCO's claims of Unix copyright ownership.
Novell said the US Copyright Office gave it copyright registrations for 11 versions of System V Unix. Legal action between the two companies is expected as a result of those claims.
Talkback
A report in the press is hardly a reliable piece of evidence given that, these days, one can hardly discern the truth of anything from the press and media.
I hope SCO get a really bad headache from their behaviour, not only because they are wrong but also because of the way they have gone about it.
SCO tells Novell that SCO owns the copyrights, but won't tell IBM.
On 1/12/04, SCO delivered an affidavit, 60 pages of text, and some documents to IBM in response to a court order. Like everyone else, except IBM, I am still waiting to see the 60 page supplemental response, but I have additional information from public statements by SCO.
In its press releases and letters to its customers, SCO claims that violations of its copyrights are in the Linux kernel. On December 5,SCO's lawyer, Keven McBride, said in court that SCO would be filing copyright claims against IBM, and, after objecting, promised to supply the copyright information requested in IBM's interrogatories..
On December 12, SCO was compelled by court order to answer ALL IBM questions with specificity by January 12. One of those questions was:INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating system and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX.
On 1/13/04, in the interview SCO shows IBM the code, SCO spokesman Bruce Stowell said: "Monday's response included no examples of copyright violations. "We've not introduced copyright infringement as part of our case with IBM. We've tried to make it clear that it's a contract issue."
SCO could have made arguments like this before it was ordered to respond to IBM's questions without further discussion. Now it's too late.
The order said to identify all rights that SCO claimed. It was not limited to rights that SCO was currently claiming as part of its suit against IBM, and, in my opinion, even includes the code contributed by SCO to Linux.
If, as Stowell said, SCO did not specify any copyrights that it owns in Linux, then either it is not claiming to own any such copyrights, or it has not complied with the court order. If SCO now officially declines to claim ownership of any such copyrights, then it is hard to see how they could claim them in any later suit against Novell, a Linux user or a Linux distributor.
If SCO does claim ownership, it has blatantly defied the court order, and the judge can order sanctions. My guess is that part of the sanctions would be to bar SCO from suing anyone on any claims that it failed to specify in its 1/12 response to the compel order. The judge might also order SCO to show cause why it should not be held in contempt, and why it should not suffer sanctions for failing to comply with the order.