Have any links to add? I'll re-release this press list when it's significantly better.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 10 of 10.

• Greg Lehey's analyses are worthwhile, too
  2003-09-09 01:41:49  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Great press kit - the only thing I missed were Greg Lehey's (of The Complete FreeBSD and FreeBSD Core fame) analyses and links to various resources, at http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/

• Lawyers call SCO claims "bizarre" "ridiculous"
  2003-09-03 07:53:55  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  "'Still, legal experts last week said SCO's new legal tack may not stand up. "It's true that pre-emption is a valid defense," Ferguson said. "Whether or not that will carry any weight in court is somewhat suspect.""
  
  Pre-emption would perhaps work if the GPL was trying to base itself on a state law, but it doesn't. The GPL is a way for an author to easily exercise the rights that USC-17-102 says the author has exclusive rights to grant. One of htem is the right to authorize reproduction ... and USC makes no mention of the terms of the granting - you could grant the right to a public performance of your play for no royalties under the condition that the performance be in the nude. It's legal.

• Lawyers call SCO claims "bizarre" "ridiculous"
  2003-09-02 13:21:57  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  EE Times article by Charles J. Murray
  
  'But others questioned the argument's merits and legal analysts insisted that the likelihood of SCO making such a case before a judge is slim. "It appears to be a totally bizarre argument," said James Boyle, a professor at Duke University's law school (Durham, N.C.). "It's hard to imagine what they're thinking." '
  
  'Success for SCO could damage the open-source movement, which depends on the GPL. It could also raise serious legal questions for OEMs with Linux-based products. "If SCO is correct, it means that their alleged infringers could not rely on the GPL as a defense," said Brian Ferguson, an intellectual-property (IP) attorney with McDermott, Will & Emery in Washington...
  
  'Still, legal experts last week said SCO's new legal tack may not stand up. "It's true that pre-emption is a valid defense," Ferguson said. "Whether or not that will carry any weight in court is somewhat suspect." '

• SCO fined EUR10,000 for infringment claim
  2003-09-01 19:25:50  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Here, this recently from GROKLAW: (unofficial translation provided by a pro-linux.de reader.)
  
  "Disciplinary penalty of 10.000 Euro against german SCO Group GmbH
  
  The regional court of Munich I has punished the german SCO Group GmbH by an administrative fine of 10.000 Euro.
  
  As the "tarent GmbH" and the "LinuxTag e.v" say, SCO has infringed upon the temporary injunction that prohibited to claim that Linux would contain
  illegally provided intellectual property of SCO. In May 2003 the "tarent GmbH" among other enterprises had obtained this injunction.
  
  The regional court accuses the SCO Group GmbH of "negligent behaviour" by having claim on their website that the end user who uses the software linux could be made responsible for protection violations of intellectual property of SCO still after the publishing of the temporary injunction.
  
  The SCO Group GmbH has two possibilities: It can pay the 10.000 Euro punishment or the manager is taken to prison for 10 days."

• Obfuscated code?
  2003-08-30 20:14:54  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Here Sontag says the slides were misunderstood.
  
  "But Sontag said the BPF routines were not intended to be an example of stolen code, but rather a demonstration of how SCO was able to detect "obfuscated" code, or code that had been altered slightly to disguise its origins. The slide displaying the code should have been written differently to reflect that intention, he said. "
  
  But if you go to Slide 15 It's pretty clear what they were saying before the code was debunked was much different from what they are saying now.

• Economist Magazine on SCO
  2003-08-30 20:08:01  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Here Economist Magazine compares Darl and SCO to fundamentalists trying to fight the teaching of evolution in schools.

• Unilever's quotation: No Grounds for End Users
  2003-08-30 20:04:32  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Here is a google cache of an article from VNUNet.com . It isn't on the website any longer. There's no telling how long it will be in Google.
  
  Unilever is one of the largest food production companies in the world.

• Lee Gomez' wall street journal article
  2003-08-30 19:54:08  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08122003/business/83192.asp
  
  This may be the first "mainstream" pro-Linux article.
  
  This is a reprint in the Salt Lake City Tribune of a Wall Street Journal Article.

• IBM's developers on adding aix code
  2003-08-30 19:50:04  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/02/06/18/1339201.shtml?tid=136
  
  This is an interview with some AIX developers. They discuss how the program was overseen and cleared by IBM's legal team.
  
  I'm posting it because it deals with SCO's claim that IBM added "derivative works" to Linux

• USA Copyright Law (1.4Mb PDF)
  2003-08-30 19:27:01  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  
  In case you want to read it yourself:
  
  http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf