MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-05-27 |
| FROM | Dave Williams
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Darl McBride Interview
|
From:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2913802,00.html
Q: What was it that pushed you to the point of filing suit?
A: The tipping point for us was at Linux World this year, when an IBM
executive stood up in front of a large crowd and essentially said,
"We're moving our AIX expertise into Linux, and we're going to destroy
the value of Unix."
Those comments alone would have been a direct violation of our AIX
contract with IBM, under which they license our Unix intellectual
property. That's what caused us to start digging [to] find out what was
going on. And the deeper we dug, the more we found. When we tried to
resolve things with them, we reached an impasse. This lawsuit is the
final extension of the negotiating process.
Q: Why have you not chosen to pursue these types of claims against other
companies that develop both Unix and Linux? For example, Hewlett-Packard
(HPQ ) has a massive open-source program, but they also sell their own
Unix distributions.
A: Our feeling is that if our intellectual-property rights have been
violated, then all parties need to recognize that and work out some form
of compensation or action. The majority of other vendors are stepping up
in a positive fashion.
We want to protect our rights, but our goal is not to litigate with
anybody. In IBM's case, they came back and said, "If you go down this
path, we are going to disengage. We are not going to do any more
business with you, and we are going to encourage others not to do any
more business with you." That was in fact what happened. The impact was
immediate and swift. No doubt, we lost some business and some revenue.
Q: You said the more you dug, the more you found. What kinds of things
did you find?
A: In the last 18 months, we found that IBM had donated some very
high-end enterprise-computing technologies into open-source. Some of it
looked like it was our intellectual property and subject to our
licensing agreements with IBM. Their actions were in direct violation of
our agreements with them that they would not share this information, let
alone donate it into open-source. We have examples of code being lifted
verbatim.
And IBM took the same team that had been working on a Unix code project
with us and moved them over to work on Linux code. If you look at the
code we believe has been copied in, it's not just a line or two, it's an
entire section -- and in some cases, an entire program.
Q: What does this mean for the future of SCO and its involvement in the
Linux community?
A: We would be happy to sit down and get a resolution on this so we can
all live together peacefully. But when we file a legal claim and then
someone does a denial-of-service attack on our Web site to try to shut
us down, it creates concerns for us as to how can you work with this
community.
Q: Microsoft just purchased a Unix license from you. What's significant
about that?
A: They agree with our approach to intellectual property. They've taken
a patent license on our technology to build better integration between
Unix and Windows. I believe that sends a statement to others with
respect to what it means to honor intellectual property.
Q: Some people have said this is a maneuver to help SCO get purchased by
a larger company.
A: That's not the direction we are trying to take. Our company has been
doing better. We preannounced earnings for our next quarter...of $4
million in net income. We have a pipeline of revenue that's going to be
showing up in coming quarters. We're perfectly fine going down an
independent path.
Q: Some people have speculated that Microsoft is planning on purchasing
you.
A: We have not had any discussions along those lines. If they are, they
haven't told us about it.
Q: When I talk to some people in the open-source community, they say
this is an attempt to overturn the way the community works. How would
you answer them?
A: I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some
fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how
this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold.
Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source
projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using
the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using
stolen code.
Basically it's a "buyer beware" situation. The one holding the hot
potato is the end-use customer. If the process can't provide more
guarantees for customers, I don't think it will pass the long-term test
at the customer level. You need some comfort level other than "We can
warrant none of this, we don't know where it came from. And because you
got it for free, you shouldn't complain about it."
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
