?"> SCOs claim that IBM has failed its contractual obligations on Unix System V hinges on a convoluted interpretation of the principle of derived works, Dion said. SCO appears to be claiming some kind of copyright ownership on all code, yet the company has admitted that those materials were fully copyrighted by IBM and Silicon Graphics Inc., Dion said.In addition, Dion pointed out something that has disturbed the open-source community for months: the fact that despite all its claims, SCO has not produced any evidence of actual infringement. SCO was recently ordered by the U.S. District Court in Utah to produce the source code and other material in Linux to which SCO believes it has the rights and describe exactly how SCO believes that IBM has infringed the companys rights. "As an open letter to Darl McBride from one single Linux advocate, I ask for only one thing: Just show us the code," said Dion.
"Their assertion seems to be that since IBM violated the terms of the Unix System V contract, SCO has some kind of copyrightlike control or ownership of the code," Dion said. "How exactly this tortured chain of logic gets converted into copyright infringement remains unclear."