Re: Linux v2.6.9 and GPL Buyout

["Jeff V. Merkey" <jmerkey@drdos.com>]

Jon Masters wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 16:58:54 -0600, Jeff V. Merkey <jmerkey@drdos.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Jon Masters wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Jeff,
>>>
>>>Could you please digitally sign this mail that you are planning to
>>>send or otherwise provide notorisation that confirms you definately
>>>mean this?
>>>
>>>I'd love for you to accept liability for this so we can pass all SCO
>>>enquiries on to you.
>>>
>>>Jon.
>>>      
>>>
>
>  
>
>>Yes. I can do even better.
>>    
>>
>
>Ok. But I need you to sign this using some recognised signature -
>other folks can suggest mechanisms we can use that are legally valid.
>I'm happy to act as a gobetween if we could get you to undertake to
>accept liability for any infringing code left in the kernel after any
>proven SCO demands were to be met (I'm sure other folks can see where
>I'm going with this discussion - let's see what the response is).
>  
>

I would agree to this. I will meet with SCO Monday and see if they will 
accept this as a proposal. I think
they probably will.

>  
>
>>I met with Darl McBride this afternoon
>>    
>>
>
>Did you have tea and crumpets? Jam?
>
>  
>
They gave me raw carrots (in a plastic bag on Blake's desk) and Baby 
Ruth candy bars. We met in
Blake's office (The PR Guy). They had their corporate counsel sitting in 
another room and I guess he was
listenting in or something, but he never entered the room. We talked 
about the Novell/Bill Mason/Pamela Jones/Groklaw
connections (all of these people are ex Novell employees). I was met at 
the front door door by Joan (Darl's
admin) and Blake, then Darl came into the Blakes office. They typed a 
letter first roasting GrokLaw then the
SCO general counsel said not to sign it even though Darl wanted him to, 
and they said to have Blake put out
some sort of release instead. Then Darl and I talked about all the Linux 
code for about an hour or so.


>>He gave me the first list, and I am waiting on the second
>>    
>>
>
>Like I said, if you could provide this to me with legally valid,
>documented proof that you'll accept liability for further infringement
>then that would help greatly with this thread.
>
>  
>

Yes. I am waiting for them to send it. I called Joan and Darl after I 
sent this and Darl had left for the day
and Joan called him on his cell phone and I am supposed to talk to Blake 
on Monday.

>>I don't think he likes Linux much
>>    
>>
>
>That surprises me. I thought Darl loved Linux more than life itself -
>thanks for the correction.
>
>  
>
>>I will have it probably Monday. I'll post it then.
>>    
>>
>
>If you mail it to me at: jcm@jonmasters.org along with some contact
>details then I can arrange to have you mail me a signed declaration
>accepting liability.
>
>  
>

Agreed. I will do so. I think SCO just wants their stuff our of Linux. 
We should accomodate them.
Who wants to use this stuff besides IBM anyway.

>>Darl seemed like a nice enough sort
>>    
>>
>
>I'd love to interview the guy, if he were interested.
>
>  
>

I could ask him...

>>We argued for 30 minutes about SMP support in Linux and I think
>>he will just let this one go since I pointed out that Novell had
>>disclosed the Unixware SMP stuff at Brainshare and he
>>cannot claim it as trade secrete any longer.
>>    
>>
>
>That's interesting. Can you commit to that too in your declaration please?
>  
>
Yes.

>>and he would claim any contribution from any IBM employee in Linux.
>>    
>>
>
>Were there any restrictions upon when that person was an employee?
>  
>

Yes. He said any employee who had access to their source code and who 
fell under the license agreements. It was
somewhat nebulous, and form the way he explained it, the agreements with 
IBM pretty much covered all employees
everywhere. There was some sort of non-compete clause so I think this 
affects everyone.

>  
>
>>I will post to kernel.org the complete listing.
>>    
>>
>
>Thanks. I look forward to reading that.
>  
>

You got it.

Jeff