Slashdot Mirror

Wait--I'm wrong. The "BSD License" is a non-restrictive type license. http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

You are only going to have problems if you try to claim it as GPL'ed--which Perforce does not allow.

Closed Source means that the source is not available.

Security requires not(Closed Source), but not necessarily Open Source.

PS: most open-source things require source to be provided to the user, not to the world. I develop software. I sell it to my clients. Then I give them the source. They have security, because they can examine the source. I am GPL compliant because I don't stop them from re-distributing the source. But that doesn't mean that I have to give it to YOU...

> How is Microsoft coercive? No-one's forcing you to buy and use their software.

Oh, really? Have you been living under a rock?

From the Microsoft strategy paper known as the Halloween Document:

> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

Microsoft memos from the DOJ case Findings of Fact:

> "We will bind the shell to the Internet Explorer, so that running any other browser is a jolting experience."

> Gates wrote, "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . ."

> In Waldman's [Microsoft executive in charge of Mac Office] words:
> "Sounds like we give them the HTML control for nothing except making IE the "standard browser for Apple?" I think they should be doing this anyway. Though the language of the agreement uses the word "encourage," I think that the spirit is that Apple should be using it everywhere and if they don't do it, then we can use Office as a club."

Microsoft memos from evidence in the Java case:

> "Strategic Objective [to] kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market"

> As reported to Bill Gates in April 1997 by the manager responsible for execution of Microsoft's strategy:
"When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns...
> 1. What is our business model for Java?
> 2. How do we wrest control of Java away from Sun?
> 3. How do we turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications?"

> "At this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

Microsoft has tried to sabotage every major competitor on the PC, from WordPerfect to Netscape, in order to make it impossible for anyone to use PC hardware without also using Microsoft software.

I think the word "coercive" doesn't go far enough.

I would use words like extortionary, fraudulent, and criminal.

Regarding Section 2.01, we agree that modifications and derivative works prepared by or for you are owned by you. However, ownership of any portion or portions of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS included in any such modification or derivative work remains with us.

So, it would appear that IBM's "derivative works" ARE fully owned by IBM, unless they in turn *contain* original Unix source... Or at least that's the way it reads, to this non-lawyer.

How Microsoft embraces standards in general:

> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

How Microsoft supports Office on the Mac:

> Gates wrote, "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . ."

> In Waldman's [Microsoft executive in charge of Mac Office] words:
> "Sounds like we give them the HTML control for nothing except making IE the "standard browser for Apple?" I think they should be doing this anyway. Though the language of the agreement uses the word "encourage," I think that the spirit is that Apple should be using it everywhere and if they don't do it, then we can use Office as a club."

How Microsoft supports multimedia standards:

> Eric Engstrom, a Microsoft executive with responsibility for multimedia development, wrote to his superiors that one of Microsoft's goals was getting "Intel to stop helping Sun create Java Multimedia APIs, especially ones that run well (ie native implementations) on Windows." Engstrom proposed achieving this goal by offering Intel the following deal: Microsoft would incorporate into the Windows API set any multimedia interfaces that Intel agreed to not help Sun incorporate into the Java class libraries.

How Microsoft embraced Java:

> Microsoft's Executive Vice President, Paul Maritz, outlined Microsoft's strategy to win the browser war with Netscape and simultaneously "neutralize Java" by "tying" the "user interface" and "APIs" "back to Windows," by "get[ting] control of JAVA with JAVA support/tools", and by "get[ting] control of then leverag[ing] the programming model."

> As reported to Bill Gates in April 1997 by the manager responsible for execution of Microsoft's strategy:
"When I met with you last, you had a lot of pretty pointed questions about Java, so I want to make sure I understand your issues/concerns...
> 1. What is our business model for Java?
> 2. How do we wrest control of Java away from Sun?
> 3. How do we turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications?"

> "at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

I could continue with quotes from the Caldera case, the Bristol Wind/U case, and so on.

Time and again, Microsoft has claimed to support a technology or standard, and it turned out that they were lying, and it was just another fraud intended to trap developers and users.

Microsoft has never been punished for their crimes of sabotage and fraud.

It's the same people running the company.

There is no reason to believe that this time will be different.

To paraphrase ESR's article It ain't neccesarrely SCO

There is only general trend connection between revenue and profit, no logical connection.

It's an equation with 3 variables and you need two to get the third. Cost is unknown, and I suspect they have fired or let go pretty much all people related to Code production. .

Movable Type is most assuredly not Open Source.

It does not matter for most people's use, but it's still incorrect to say that it is.

</PEDANTIC>

4. The UNIX software distribution vendors, such as IBM, are contractually and legally prohibited from giving away or disclosing proprietary UNIX source code and methods for external business purposes, such as contributions to the Linux community or otherwise using UNIX for the benefit of others. This prohibition extends to derivative work products that are modifications of, or based on, UNIX System V source code or technology. IBM and certain other UNIX software distributors are violating this prohibition, en masse, as though no prohibition or proprietary restrictions exist at all with respect to the UNIX technology. As a result of IBM's wholesale disregard of its contractual and legal obligations to SCO, Linux 2.4.x and the development Linux kernel, 2.5.x, are filled with UNIX source code, derivative works and methods. As such, Linux 2.4.x and Linux 2.5.x are unauthorized derivatives of UNIX System V.

5. As set forth in more detail below, IBM has breached its obligations to SCO, induced and encouraged others to breach their obligations to SCO, interfered with SCO's business, and engaged in unfair competition with SCO, including by:

a) misusing UNIX software licensed by SCO to IBM and Sequent;

b) inducing, encouraging, and enabling others to misuse and misappropriate SCO's proprietary software; and

c) incorporating (and inducing, encouraging, and enabling others to incorporate) SCO's proprietary software into Linux open-source software offerings.

As far as your point about the media. I think you were at least partly on there, though I think that this had much more to do with SCO's motivation. Also, notice where that link came from. I think they may have much more motivation to "make everybody believe, that Linux is illegal."

I call bullshit. You need to go RTFWebsite

ESR has already stated how he feels about being the guidon holder for open source.

1. Take my job, please.

2. Understand my job, please.

Further, if you can find someone who will do all of that, and perhaps more, you need to send him an e-mail, because he wants to know about it. Why not use this as a starting point when you're looking.

As for what ESR has done for the Open Source Community-at-large, ponder this, batman: You need the idealists, the pragmatists, and yes, even the more wild. Why? Because the community they're speaking in the name of, and the communities they're speaking to are just as diverse. It will be these men, and the relevant foundations that write the amici curiae in support of Linux, the GPL, or Open Source in general, when the time is necessary.

When was the last time you said thanks?

Only a fool would be short-sighted enough to not to see the danger of using (supporting) Microsoft protocols, especially over the Internet.

In the Halloween Document, a Microsoft strategist wrote:

> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

Or consider this evidence in the Java case:

> Microsoft's Executive Vice President, Paul Maritz, outlined Microsoft's strategy to win the browser war with Netscape and simultaneously "neutralize Java" by "tying" the "user interface" and "APIs" "back to Windows,"

This quote also shows us how Microsoft operates:

> at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. Instead we should just quietly grow j++ share and assume that people will take advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps."

And then there's this little gem:

> "Subversion has always been our best tactic," John Ludwig, Microsoft's vice president in charge of Java development, wrote. "It leaves the competition confused, and they don't know what to shoot at anymore."

Perhaps this quote sums it up the best:

> "This is really the core of Microsoft's business," Gartner Research Director Chris LeTocq said. "Microsoft is in business to leverage APIs. That's a key element of the successful market share it has."

If you haven't understood the point, then here it is...

If you continue to accept the ASF format, then you are encouraging websites to use it.

But it's still a protocol that is controlled by Microsoft.

In the future, Microsoft will:

1. Upgrade ASF to an incompatible format.

2. Start enforcing their ownership of ASF by restricting its use to Microsoft platforms (as GIFs started to be enforced).

3. Lock up ASF using Microsoft .Net and DRM protocols.

And the websites that are using ASF will go along blindly. Why? Because no one has been complaining to them about their use of ASF, so they have no reason to avoid Microsoft's "improvements."

And at that point, the content of those websites will become unavailable to you unless you are running Windows XP.

It really annoys me when people fail to protect themselves, and everyone else, because they are too lazy or short-sighted to put up with a little temporary inconvenience. Are you hoping that someone else will do the work of protecting your freedom? Well, don't.

It's up to you. If you want the Internet to remain free, then stop supporting Microsoft protocols.

Why not redirect them to the OSI's position paper on the fiasco? No point offending some random researcher.

Their real reason for DRM in Office...

To stop the Halloween Documents from leaking year after year!

It really appears like it's you who haven't read it.

And how about reading this (which says that the BSD-license is a free software license) and this, which argues for using a copyleft free software license like the GPL rather than a non-copyleft free software license like the BSD license)? (Emphasis mine.)

And how come that both the GPL and the BSD license is on the OSI's list of approved licenses?

It's because free software and open source are meant to describe the same thing. The two terms are used by two groups, one who openly values freedom for it's own sake, and another who, well, don't like to speak about it that much.

> Every MS virus, worm, and what not does not cause BILLIONS in lost dollars. There are I am sure some cases of actual lost real money, but if they totalled billions I'd be surprised.

So be surprised.

Here are some virus costs from Wired:

Nimda -- $635 million
Code Red -- $2.62 billion
SirCam -- $1.15 billion
Love Bug -- $8.75 billion

While we're looking at statistics, here's another...

According to CERT, the number of reported security incidents grew, starting in 1988, until they hovered at just over two thousand incidents per year from 1994 to 1997.

But then in 1998, the number of incidents started to explode:

1998 -- 3,734
1999 -- 9,859
2000 -- 21,756
2001 -- 52,658
2002 -- 82,094
2003 -- 76,404 (so far)

So what happened in 1998?

Microsoft introduced embedded e-mail scripting in Outlook Express!

Even an idiot could have predicted the consequences.

But why would Microsoft do something that was so clearly incompetent and irresponsible?

The answer can be found in another event that occurred in 1998, namely, the leaked release of the Halloween document. That internal Microsoft document described a strategy for fighting Open Source, as follows:

> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.

So there you have it. The embedded scripting in Outlook Express is just one part of a general Microsoft strategy to decommoditize (i.e. break) Internet protocols.

In other words, these viruses and worms, which are costing us $billions, are just a side effect of MICROSOFT'S EXTENDED DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK ON OPEN SOURCE USERS.

If Jeffrey Parson might be going to jail for his denial of service attack (modifying the DDOS Blaster worm), then why not the president of Microsoft?

It looks like you are infected with the Programmer.NoJob.FUD32 virus. Please apply this patch immediately.

Regards,
admin@trollingfud.com

Sadly, Vancouver, BC does not show up on their connectivity map. Anyone wanna trade karma for an MIT scholarship?

You will definitely want to read Halloween IX if you haven't already... its an excellent shredding of SCO's idiocy.

Info is from the Halloween 9, It Ain't Necessarily SCOdocument. Excellent read

As the Halloween IX authors are keen to point out, HP make more money out of Linux than IBM do.

In business terms, that is called "commitment"

> > We didn't look at what webservers the pages we tested were running on though. There aren't too many IIS servers out there compared with *nix and I know IE and IIS break http standards to implement speed hacks on page loading in IE and slow it down in other browsers.

> Wow, what bullshit!

Not necessarily bullshit. Here is an explanation:

What makes IE so fast?

Note the "update" where the author speculates whether the observed behaviour was intentional or a bug.

Still, anyone who thinks that Microsoft is too honorable to cheat, needs to have their head examined. And if you think that Microsoft has any respect for standards and protocols, go and re-read the Halloween Document.

ESR's already done the serious bit. The OSI's latest document, written by Rob Landley and ESR, is such an awesome, sober, closely reasoned demolition of the SCO legal complaint that you would imagine IBM could just write "MOTION TO DISMISS" at the top of it and stick it in the mail.

The useful value of this amusing rant is that it potentially widens the audience. Because it's extreme and amusing it get passed around and will be seen by people who aren't going to click a headline to read the technical details.

This could have material value. There is a general assumption that when a company like SCO makes public statements, those statements have a reasonable amount of truth in them. That assumption's what's been keeping SCO's stock price up. If it becomes common water-cooler chatter that Darl McBride is a paranoid loony, then those ordinary business types are going to be a little more inclined to check the facts before believing the press releases.

If SCO's stock price were to collapse under a weight of disbelief, the backers would get cold feet and the whole problem could disappear.

Need more SCO crap to start your day? Check out ESR's and Robs commentary on SCO's response to IBM's counter suit.

"I'm in at least semi-regular communication with most of the people and organizations who are causing you problems right now."

"Take that offer while you still can, Mr. McBride. So far your so-called 'evidence' is crap; you'd better climb down off your high horse before we shoot that sucker entirely out from under you."

"Was this what you wanted out of life, to end up imitating the doomed villain in a cheesy B movie? Tell me, does that dark helmet fit comfortably? Are all the minions cringing in proper form? "No, Mr. Torvalds, I expect you to die!" I'd ask if you'd found the right sort of isolated wasteland for your citadel of dread yet, but that would be a silly question; you're in Utah, after all."

First off, I think he sounds moronic with those StarWars references, secondly, there's a relevant Halloween 9 out.

It's not quite as simple as you make out, because Denis Ritchie (who, with Ken Thompson, developed UNIX, as well as developing C with Brian Kernighan), was working for AT&T at the time. AT&T's rights now belong to SCO.

So, the fact that Ritchie wrote something, does not, by itself, mean that SCO doesn't own it. There's all the complicated stuff in between, such as the USL vs BSDI lawsuit and settlement.

The OSI Position paper by esr is your best reference to the history and background to all this.

What does SCO think it's doing?

I see all that talk about lawsuits as just more noise. I doubt whether this is what SCO really wants - we need to keep an eye on the magician's other hand instead.

Yes: they get to jiggle the share price up and down at their whim, make quite a lot of money for a short while, but the whole thing will collapse in the end. Short-term stuff.

Let's not take our eyes off the ball; Yes: the GPL needs to be defended - that's probably the easy part.

The really dangerous effect is the FUD: Repeat it often enough, and lots of people will believe it - after all most people have no idea of what we mean when we say free - remember that there are people out there who actually believe that turning the ignition key makes the wheels run (think: direct connection).

This whole thing is the natural progression of the scenarious that were laid out in the Haloween Documents. Eric Raymond is bound to have predicted that somewhere. Yes: I'm sure that M$ is pulling the strings somewhere in the darkness.

Which basically leads us back to: How do we fight FUD?. (yes: the truth will come out sooner or later, but I'd rather have it sooner). Will the old defence actually work this time? Ideas are welcome...

The FUD this generates mainly benefits one company - (!MegaHard).

PS: By FUD here I mean the notion of Open Source software being of dubious origin, dangerous to use etc.

AT&T released several versions of Unix. System V was one susch version which went through several releases, the last of which was System V, Release 4 or SVR4 in 1988. See for a chart.

Sys V refers to the Unix source code as it stood in the mid 80s.

The Opensource organisation have an evolution chart. This is a simplifed version from the UNIX timeline history. Bang up to date as well (July 31st is the most recent update). It's in a similar style to those civilisation charts that nearly every History teacher has pinned on the wall. Looks like one civilisation is about to become extinct.

Hope it helps.

The problem with posts about Microsoft is that they're all assumption.

Look. For years it was common knowledge that Microsoft was draining talent from academia and other places. Newsweek published info about it back in the middle 90's. There were attitudes like, "Oh, I know it's beneath my dignity to work for a DOS company, but Microsoft gave me such a generous offer that I just couldn't refuse." No. That is not a direct quote. I just used quotation marks and convenient grammar to give the impression that I got IIRC. It is common knowledge that extremely bright people are on the payroll of Microsoft. Given the universal hatred of unstable technological products, and given the immense immediate talent on the Redmond campus, how could a rational person conclude something other than that Microsoft's rank and file is full of people who like/"need" the money but wish like crazy that they could exhibit more craftsmanship? The Halloween Documents are darned good proof of that kind of thing. We are not talking about assumptions. It is a convenient double bind that rigorous backing of such opinions is "too long" and that quick assertions of opinion are "unsupported" or "assumptions".

Perhaps Mono has been overlooked as a large factor in Novell's purchase of Ximian and general alliance with Linux. Becoming a leader in Mono development would allow Novell to be seen as going head-to-head with Microsoft's flagship, .NET, in the ultimate "embrace and extend" (Open Source Software).

Helix's licenses have been cleared by the people that help protect the open-source definition http://opensource.org/

By the way they're not giving a client. They're giving us the framework to build the client, and the server, and the encoders. There's no "nagware" unless open source developers choose to put it there.

The problem I suspect is that the helix project is geared to to people that can do something with the source, not end users. Hence most of slashdotters have no idea how this project can help them.

CNet is running a peice on the Open Source And Industry Alliance an advocacy and lobbying group sponsored by the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

This is indeed great news. Now perhaps the OpenSource community can get behind this effort to politicise itself and vigorously advocate where it most counts, the halls of the U.S. Congress.

In its statment of principles and purpose, the OSAIA states:

Business, government and private individuals must be free to choose software and technologies that best suit their needs, independent of the methodologies or licenses used in their development.

The marketplace must be free of prejudice against open source software, whether through law, regulation, defamation or other means. OSAIA will act to achieve this goal."

This is a good start. The CCIA boasts a formidable stable of memebers including AOL, Kodak, Oracle, Fujitsu, Verizon, Yahoo and others.

There are several good resources on the web that are acting as clearinghouses for information that can be drawn upon as resources in this fight. Notably are TWikIWeThey , the Open Source Initiative , the Free Software Foundation.

Numerous weblogs are available as resources most notably Groklaw.
Pam has amassed an incredible wealth of links and facts surrounding the SCO v IBM issue. Another good site for legal info is the Daily Whirl which is a legal blog site index devoted to lawyers for lawyers covering among other subjects, copyright. GrepLaw and A Copy Fighter's Musings are two good places to start.

Finally, for those of you who want to develop good arguments against intellectual monopolies visit Boldrin and Levine's, Intellectual Property Page .

So, in effect, what you're saying is that Microsoft's practices are hurting open source software, and so the open source community is entitled to affirmative action^W^Whelp from the government to succeed. Well, I'm sorry, but I think that's a bullshit position.

I'm not sure in what way open source software is on an unequal ground when competing in the marketplace. It's possible to develop open source software for Windows (witness Mozilla and OpenOffice); it's possible to get Microsoft to agree to participate in specification processes (witness HTML and their efforts to standardize C# via ECMA). And it's not the fact that it's open source that hurts adoption of OSS on Windows platforms (witness Apache on Windows). When OSS is the logical choice, people choose it, just like people choose independent vendors as well (like Sun).

No. Disney non-supporting Open Source, as it has always been.

No. Disney non-supporting Open Source, as it has always been.

To those who wish that IBM or whoever would simply buy out SCO, consider the following:

1) America is rampant with frivolous lawsuits. Hell, we invented the term, along with nuiscience suit. What big company doesn't have one or more?

2)There will be more to follow. Count on it. When you get big enough, you get sued. If you're intimidated now(or your manager is), then you might as well drop Linux because this won't be the last. This lawsuit is as full of s*** as they come, and if we as a community concede to their desire for a buyout under these circumstances, we have no chance of surviving.

3)The only thing which gives this lawsuit any legitimacy is the fact that SCO bought some UNIX licenses in the past. Everything else about it is made up of lies and contradictions:

1. They attack Linus for not carefully checking and preventing proprietary code from infecting Linux, yet SCO itself continued(continues?) to distribute Linux, apparently oblivious to violation of their own IP.
2. Their inability to decide on what type of IP case this is; copyright? patents? contract violations?
3. They claim ownership of all code related to Unix. As the BSD case has established, this is impossible. If they claim ownership only of work derived specifically from Sys V, then all they can ask for is for those "stolen" parts to be removed.

4)The only thing that matters is what is done in court. "Cease and desist" letters, random claims of ownership of IP, threats to sue anyone and everyone, look pathetic. Despite all the fears of FUD scaring users away, most people understand this. This is why smart companies have a policy of silence during litigation.

5)Be grateful SCO's claims are so outrageous. It's as if I were to send Microsoft a letter claiming they stole some of my IP and therefore the entire company is mine. Or that some MS employee sneaked some SCO code into Windows, and therefore SCO owns all of Windows XP.

The best thing to do is point people to articles like Eric Raymond's and ANUPAM CHANDER's as well as the fact that in the first court challenge by LinuxTag, SCO backed off.

> taking your GPL source code, making a few changes, and selling that as a commerical closed source project. I don't think many OSS advocates would stand for that for very long,

Yeah, who's be crazy enough to do that?

Linux distributions try to interoperate with Windows-- but Microsoft's undocumented protocols make that hard to achieve. See the halloween documents for their motivations...

ESR -> Eric S. Raymond, the guy who is a megalo gun-nut and happens to be the president of OSI.

zlib is not PD, actually. It's under a BSD-style license.

They're a relic of a different time. Think Open Standards, not Open Source. The term Open Source only dates back to 1998.

At any rate, thanks for the comments. It's heartening to hear from people that what you are doing is professional, especially when faced with the challenges of the demands of people worldwide on your "little" project.

Glad to hear that POPFile is working out for you.

John.

For Helix Community, we have a dual-licensing model which gives the community an OSI certified license (RPSL), and a more commercially focused license (RCSL). Additionally, there are components that remain proprietary.

Where do you draw the line? That's always tough, but having the dual-license makes it easier to err on the side of opening up "too much".

Rob Lanphier
Helix Community Coordinator

Sleepcat might be something to look into. It works well in some situations. [license info]

I think almost everyone is buying the diversion and ignoring the real threat.

If SCO loses the lawsuit because of the so-called "viral" aspect of GPL, then Linux could suffer substantially as a result of SCO's loss.

Microsoft could say something like "see, we told you that crap was viral, you'll all lose your company's intellectual property rights if you use 'free software' with your proprietary work!"

Want to know how much "value" decision-makers perceive when they think about intellectual property and proprietary software? Look at the market cap of MSFT because the decision-makers do and many have owned shares since the early 1990's if they had a clue and wished their own companies were doing so well.

And by the time SCO loses, 'free software' would be associated strictly with GPL instead of any of dozens of other OSI-approved licenses such as BSD License and MIT License that are more friendly toward intellectual property ownership.

More and more news stories will talk about 'free software' ONLY in the context of GPL and basically cause every decision-maker to think they're one and the same. This is the subtle FUD (4th & 9th paragraphs) going on right now and most Linux advocates don't even realize it.

Face it, companies and governments like free stuff as much as we do but requiring them to give up their proprietary work makes it easy for SCO & Microsoft to argue against in the context of money and national security.

The fact that many companies won't make a dime on the affected proprietary software or that the govt's affected proprietary software is mostly useless crap doesn't matter--perception is what matters.

Why do you think SCO wanted 1,000+ companies to EXAMINE the GPL? Because they knew most didn't bother yet and their lawyers would freak out if they saw the intellectual property issues with GPL. So if SCO loses based on GPL, they end up winning what they originally set out to accomplish: making companies avoid the use of GPL software and by fud association all 'free software' too. How many clueless companies will replace Apache web server because they incorrectly believe it is covered by GPL? 8,000?

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer and all my messages are not to be taken as statements of fact but are solely my own opinion.

Regarding SCO's positioning on UNIX, The Open Group would like to make it clear that SCO holds the rights only to the operating system source code originally licensed by AT&T and does not own the UNIX trademark itself or definition of what a UNIX system is. [...]

In fact, SCO has never owned UNIX or the definition of what a UNIX system is. From the OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint:

Neither SCO/Caldera nor old SCO has ever owned the UNIX trademark. IBM neither requested nor required SCO's permission to call their AIX offering a Unix. That decision lies not with the adventitious owner of the historical Bell Labs source code, but with The Open Group.

From http://opengroup.org/:

Who owns UNIX® ?

You may have seen recent press articles announcing that SCO is the owner of UNIX or has licensed UNIX to Microsoft. Such statements are inaccurate, misleading and cause considerable confusion. The Open Group has owned the registered trademark UNIX since 1994. Here is what we said in response to a Linux Weekly News article last week. Also available is a backgrounder that explains the history and reasons why The Open Group takes action on trademark misuse.

The Open Group owns UNIX. SCO just owns the copyright on some old source code that *implements* UNIX and nobody could care less. Furthermore

"Why IBM hasn't done that yet, I can't guess, expect for the slim possibility than even they aren't sure how sound the footing beneath them is. If they do go to court against SCO, they'll be bringing several issues, such as the GPL and various software patent issues, to their first true legal test, and I can empathize if they are slightly uncomfortable in doing so."

You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.