The SCO case and Linux
It appears, judging from responses to my last post in 
linux, that there is still some confusion over what legal theories SCO are invoking, and what they actually can get through them.
SCO are claiming several things. The most interesting claim is that they are entitled to royalties from all Linux users, inclusive. The question then is, under what legal theory is it possible to make that kind of claim? The only theory this is possible under is the so called "intellectual property" theory.
Intellectual property, or IP (not to be confused with the network term) is actually a catch-all phrase for several very different legal theories; namely Copyright, Patents, Trademarks and Trade secrets. Let's look at these, one by one.
Patents
No claim about SCO patents in Linux have been made.
Trademarks
No claim about SCO trademarks in Linux have been made.
Trade secrets
Trade secrets are only protectable by contract, and leaked trade secrets only provide allowance for relief from the party leaking them. Once they are no longer secrets, they afford no protection - and most certainly no need for licensing and royalties. SCO has posturized some about this, but for purposes of royalty payments it is irrelevant.
Copyright
This is what IBM has cornered SCO as telling the court they have no claim to regarding Linux.
These are the only legal theories (outside of individual contracts) where royalties have to be paid. If IBM loses every single point in the case, but the declaration that there is no SCO copyrighted code in Linux is passed, SCO has no right what so ever to royalties from anyone, except those it has a contract specifying royalties from with.
Any other information, from SCO or any other source, is FUD. Please help stop the FUD by only citing FACT and not unwarranted speculation helping SCO and undermining lawful use of FOSS software.
Disclaimer: IANAL, although I could be playing one on TV. If you need legal advice to decide how to handle SCO knocking on your door, pay a lawyer for it. If you have any corrections to this post, please do provide them; it is intended as anti-FUD, but I am merely human and it may contain mistakes.
linux, that there is still some confusion over what legal theories SCO are invoking, and what they actually can get through them.SCO are claiming several things. The most interesting claim is that they are entitled to royalties from all Linux users, inclusive. The question then is, under what legal theory is it possible to make that kind of claim? The only theory this is possible under is the so called "intellectual property" theory.
Intellectual property, or IP (not to be confused with the network term) is actually a catch-all phrase for several very different legal theories; namely Copyright, Patents, Trademarks and Trade secrets. Let's look at these, one by one.
Patents
No claim about SCO patents in Linux have been made.
Trademarks
No claim about SCO trademarks in Linux have been made.
Trade secrets
Trade secrets are only protectable by contract, and leaked trade secrets only provide allowance for relief from the party leaking them. Once they are no longer secrets, they afford no protection - and most certainly no need for licensing and royalties. SCO has posturized some about this, but for purposes of royalty payments it is irrelevant.
Copyright
This is what IBM has cornered SCO as telling the court they have no claim to regarding Linux.
These are the only legal theories (outside of individual contracts) where royalties have to be paid. If IBM loses every single point in the case, but the declaration that there is no SCO copyrighted code in Linux is passed, SCO has no right what so ever to royalties from anyone, except those it has a contract specifying royalties from with.
Any other information, from SCO or any other source, is FUD. Please help stop the FUD by only citing FACT and not unwarranted speculation helping SCO and undermining lawful use of FOSS software.
Disclaimer: IANAL, although I could be playing one on TV. If you need legal advice to decide how to handle SCO knocking on your door, pay a lawyer for it. If you have any corrections to this post, please do provide them; it is intended as anti-FUD, but I am merely human and it may contain mistakes.
