Novell今天也跳入与SCO冲突的圈子里，发表了一份新闻稿以挑战SCO的声明。该新闻稿是一份针对SCO之FUD（FUD:恐惧、不确定、怀疑，即心理恐怖战术）信件的措辞强烈的回应。
“非常重要的是，恰恰与SCO的断言相反，SCO并非UNIX版权的拥有者。不仅略读一下美国版权署的档案记录可以揭示这一事实，而且，让我们回顾一下Novell和SCO之间的资产转移协议，同样也可以证实这个问题。就Novell所知，1995年SCO签署协议从Novell购买UNIX代码，并不包括与此相关联的UNIX版权。我们相信SCO不可能证明它对于UNIX版权拥有任何所有者权益。近几个月来，SCO反复请求Novell转移UNIX版权给SCO，而Novell拒绝了这一请求。”
该新闻稿还说SCO将为其对Linux社区造成的损害而面临“重大的法律责任”。值得一读。（hutuworm编译）
附一：
Novell Challenges SCO Position, Reiterates Support for Linux
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/05-28-2003/0001954556&EDATE=
PROVO, Utah, May 28 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Defending its interests in
developing services to operate on the Linux platform, Novell (Nasdaq: NOVL)
today issued a dual challenge to The SCO Group over its recent statements
regarding its UNIX ownership and potential intellectual property rights claims
over Linux.
First, Novell challenged SCO's assertion that it owns the copyrights and
patents to UNIX System V, pointing out that the asset purchase agreement
entered into between Novell and SCO in 1995 did not transfer these rights to
SCO. Second, Novell sought from SCO facts to back up its assertion that
certain UNIX System V code has been copied into Linux. Novell communicated
these concerns to SCO via a letter (text below) from Novell(R) Chairman and
CEO Jack Messman in response to SCO making these claims.
"To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement governing SCO's purchase of
UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the associated copyrights," Messman
said in the letter. "We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it
has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently you
share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked
Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected."
"SCO claims it has specific evidence supporting its allegations against
the Linux community," Messman added. "It is time to substantiate that claim,
or recant the sweeping and unsupported allegation made in your letter. Absent
such action, 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."
"Novell has answered the call of the open source community," said
Bruce Perens, a leading proponent of open source. "We admire what they are
doing. Based on recent announcements to support Linux with NetWare services
and now this revelation ... Novell has just won the hearts and minds of
developers and corporations alike."
Text of the letter from Novell to SCO:
Mr. Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO Group
Re: SCO's "Letter to Linux Customers"
Dear Darl:
As you know, Novell recently announced some important Linux initiatives.
These include an upcoming NetWare version based on the Linux kernel, as well
as collaboration and resource management solutions for Linux.
Put simply, Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the open source
development community. This support will increase over time.
It was in this context that we recently received your "Letter to Linux
Customers." Many Novell business partners and customers apparently received
the same letter. Your letter compels a response from Novell.
As we understand the letter, SCO alleges that unnamed entities
incorporated SCO's intellectual property into Linux without its authorization.
You apparently base this allegation on a belief that these unnamed entities
copied some UNIX System V code into Linux. Beyond this limited understanding,
we have been unable to glean any further information about your allegation
because of your letter's vagueness.
In particular, the letter leaves certain critical questions unanswered.
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? By failing to address these important questions, SCO
has failed to put us on meaningful notice of any allegedly infringing Linux
code, and thus has withheld from us the ability -- and removed any
corresponding obligation -- to address your allegation.
As best we can determine, the vagueness about your allegation is
intentional. In response to industry demands that you be more specific, you
attempt to justify your vagueness by stating, "That's like saying, 'show us
the fingerprints on the gun so you can rub them off.'" (Wall Street Journal,
May 19, 2003) Your analogy is weak and inappropriate. Linux has existed for
over a decade, and there are plenty of copies in the marketplace with which
SCO could attempt to prove its allegation.
We are aware that you recently offered to disclose some of the alleged
Linux problems to Novell and others under a nondisclosure agreement. If your
offer is sincere, it may be a step in the right direction. But we wonder
whether the terms of the nondisclosure agreement will allow Novell and others
in the Linux community to replace any offending code. Specifically, how can
we maintain the confidentiality of the disclosure if it is to serve as the
basis for modifying an open source product such as Linux? And if we cannot
use the confidential disclosure to modify Linux, what purpose does it serve?
In your letter, you analogize SCO's campaign against the Linux community
to that of the record industry against major corporations whose servers
contained downloaded music files. There are crucial differences between the
two campaigns. The record industry has provided specific information to back
up its allegation, while SCO steadfastly refuses to do so. In its allegation
letter, the record industry provides evidence of allegedly infringing activity
that is specific to the targeted company. This offers the company real notice
of the activity, sufficient information to evaluate the allegation, and an
opportunity to stop the activity if it determines the allegation is true. If
SCO wants to compare its actions to those of the record industry, it should
follow the example set by that industry and present specific evidence of the
alleged infringement.
SCO claims it has specific evidence supporting its allegation against the
Linux community. It is time to substantiate that claim, or recant the
sweeping and unsupported allegation made in your letter. Absent such action,
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 true intent becomes clearer when one considers various public
statements you and other SCO personnel have made about SCO's intellectual
property rights in UNIX. SCO continues to say that it owns the UNIX System V
patents, yet it must know that it does not. A simple review of U.S. Patent
Office records reveals that Novell owns those patents.
Importantly, and 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. To Novell's knowledge, the 1995 agreement
governing SCO's purchase of UNIX from Novell does not convey to SCO the
associated copyrights. We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that
it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights. Apparently, you
share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked
Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests that Novell has rejected.
Finally, we find it telling that SCO failed to assert a claim for copyright or
patent infringement against IBM.
SCO's actions are disrupting business relations that might otherwise form
at a critical time among partners around Linux technologies, and are depriving
these partners of important economic opportunities. We hope you understand
the potential significant legal liability SCO faces for the possible harm it
is causing to countless customers, developers, and other Linux community
members. SCO's actions, if carried forward, will lead to the loss of sales
and jobs, delayed projects, canceled financing, and a balkanized Linux
community.
We, like others, are concerned about the direction of SCO's campaign. For
now, we demand that SCO either promptly state its Linux infringement
allegations with specificity or recant the accusation made in your letter.
Further, we demand that SCO retract its false and unsupported assertions of
ownership in UNIX patents and copyrights or provide us with conclusive
information regarding SCO's ownership claims. In the future, we hope SCO will
adhere to standards of strict accuracy when stating its rights in UNIX.
Sincerely,
Jack L. Messman
Chairman, President and CEO
About Novell
Novell, Inc. is a leading provider of information solutions that deliver
secure identity management (Novell Nsure(TM)), Web application development
(Novell exteNd(TM)) and cross-platform networking services (Novell
Nterprise(TM)), all supported by strategic consulting and professional
services (Novell Ngage(SM)). Novell's vision of one Net -- a world without
information boundaries -- helps customers realize the value of their
information securely and economically. For more information, call Novell's
Customer Response Center at 888-321-4CRC (4272) or visit
http://www.novell.com . Press should visit http://www.novell.com/pressroom .
NOTE: Novell is a registered trademarks; Nsure, exteNd and Nteprise are
trademarks; and Ngage is a service mark of Novell, Inc. in the United States
and other countries. * All third-party trademarks are the property of their
respective owners.
SOURCE Novell, Inc.
Web Site: http://www.novell.com
附二：
SCO's Big Lie
http://www.perens.com/Articles/SCO/BigLie.html
You may re-publish this message or excerpts of it. Please refer to http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/, as I will continue to update this story. You may reach me at 510-526-1165 or email bruce @ perens.com .
SCO's Big Lie
We knew that SCO's attack on Linux was a lie. But we never dreamed of the big lie behind it.
By Bruce Perens
This morning, Novell announced some of the terms of the company's 1995 agreement to sell its Unix business to SCO. The shocking news is that Novell did not sell the Unix intellectual property to SCO. Instead, they sold SCO a license to develop, sell, and sub-license Unix. The title to Unix copyrights and patents remains with Novell. To back up this assertion, Novell refers to public records at the Library of Congress Copyright Office and the U.S. Patent Office.
In their announcement, Novell refers to recent letters from SCO asking Novell to assign the Unix copyrights to SCO. So, apparently SCO's management team knew that they did not own Unix while pursuing their sham campaign against Linux.
Along with this revelation, Novell is reiterating its support of the Linux and Open Source developer community, and its status as a partner in that community. Novell rejects SCO's accusations of plagarism. Novell management says they do not intend to stand in the way of the development of the Linux kernel, its companion GNU system, and other Free Software.
It would be an understatement to say that this leaves SCO in a bad position. The company has loudly and repeatedly asserted that they were the owner of the Unix intellectual property, all of the way back to AT&T's original development of the system 30 years ago. They've lied to their stockholders, their customers and partners, the 1500 companies that they threatened, the press, and the public. Their untruthful campaign caused the loss of sales and jobs, and damaged Linux companies and developers in a myriad of ways. And now, SCO will be the lawsuit target. SCO's first quarterly earnings conference call is this morning, at 9 AM MST (11 AM EST, 8 AM PST). Call 800-406-5356, toll-free, to participate. You might even get to ask a question. It should be fun to watch them try to weasel out of this one.
Microsoft executives also have egg on their faces. The company self-servingly rushed to buy an SCO license one business day after the threat letter, bringing a senior attorney to the office on a Sunday to tell the press how much Microsoft "values intellectual property." Microsoft's management could have taken the time to analyze SCO's claims, if the company had wanted this license for practical and technical reasons. Their decision to buy when they did must have been motivated by a desire to add to SCO's fear campaign. Of course they'll grab any opportunity to spread fear about Linux, but this time Microsoft bought a pig in a poke.
SCO management, if they insist on standing in the way of a train, could still claim that software they developed in the years since 1995 is being infringed by the Open Source developers. That claim, always a dubious one, will be difficult to take seriously now that their prevarication throughout this campaign has come to light. SCO would be well advised to drop their suit against IBM in exchange for IBM's agreement not to counter-sue. But IBM might not feel that charitable toward SCO.
In contrast to SCO, Novell's made a friend among the Free Software developers. We're always happy to see people using our software. But a real partnership between an IT vendor and our community is an equal partnership, with the company donating services and new software in exchange for the value it receives. Novell has already placed important software under Open Source licenses. Today, the company has done us a tremendous service, by stomping upon an obnoxious parasite.
Bio: Bruce Perens is a director of Software in the Public Interest, Inc., an Open Source development organization. He operates an independent consultancy and is a senior research scientist for Open Source at George Washington University's Cyber Security Policy Research Institute.
