Slashdot Mirror
What if SCO is Right?
b17bmbr writes "
What if SCO is right. Bruce Perens was quoted with this scenario. "it's entirely possible that SCO was inadvertently distributing its own proprietary Unix code in its version of Linux. In that case, SCO would've already released its Unix source code into open source". But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a
"viral GPL"?"
--
Need to calculate something?
Either way, the spectre of "intellectual property" has been brought up to Corporate America. Boards and CEO's who get gunshy when the litigation is aimed at them are going to be skeptical about liability and open source software.
The point has been brought to the board rooms, and I don't know see what it can do other than hurt the cause.
Why doesn't SCO tell us what part of the source are in violation? Simply because these parts don't exist.
SCO is either paid for spraying FUD (by MS) or will be payed for stopping spraying FUD (by IBM, simply because the damage this FUD is inflicting is higher than the sum SCO will want to shut up) - or both.
So please don't consider SCO seriously, they don't have a case.
GNU is a viral license. If you incorporate GNU code into your projects the price you pay is the loss of control the projects.
The question is who's OX does this gore ?
1. End users ? Not at all they arent distributing anything and they aren't selling software. If your General Steel or Home Depot you really don't care that your word processor is GNU or not.
2. Developers
A. Those that are selling to quote mass markets
Yes it affects these people alot. Oddly enough though SCO is likely to be the first of a very small number to be affected. It doesn't affect open source companies that went into their business eyes open, just really foolish companies. Its not going to affect a company like windriver, SUSE, redhat. It could affect A CA, or an ADP. These are companies that seem to operate on a captive customer model, buying smaller software companies then milking their customers for all their worth.
B. Those that are working on internal use projects
The project isnt being distributed at all. The code doesnt get distributed. Bang simple no harm no foul. In the special case of governments the code might be required to made public as it is public property, no matter how its generated.
Yes GNU and Open source is viral, but as far as costs go, the cost of being viral is very small, compared spending more on software then you do on hardware.
Just look at what MS was claiming. They won't let third parties develop GPL code using MS tools because they claim that will make the MS tools GPL.
Unless MS is somehow claiming that all code developed with MS tools automaticaly belongs to MS, their claim is absurd.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
sometimes they do claim it's theirs....
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
Non-disclosure means that any company which is curious to know what they are legally responsible for has to agree not to let anyone else know. That means, basically, that if they tell you what code they want you to pay for, you can't throw it out and develope replacement code: By agreeing to their terms of telling you what they want you to pay for, you agree to pay for it.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Statements made by SCO CEO Darl McBride and senior vice president Chris
Sontag indicate that SCO has been illegally selling and distributing software
that is in violation of the GPL. SCO first became aware of the problem late
in 2002, but has done nothing to protect customers or inform them about which
parts SCO distributed illegally. The company claims this information would
damaged their lawsuit against IBM.
SCO did not stop selling the infringing software until May 14 2003, and is
still distributing it from ftp.caldera.com.
Customers who purchased or downloaded SCO software demand the following
things:
1) A complete refund of the purchase price for any software SCO distributed
illegally.
2) Any infringing source code or intellectual property must be revealed so it
can be replaced. Any source code or intellectual property that infringes and
is owned by SCO must be released under the GPL or relevant license.
3) If SCO wins or settles its lawsuit with IBM, a portion of the money must
be returned to SCO customers who were put in legal jeopardy because SCO did
nothing protect them.
Many claim that the lawsuit against SCO is simply a bid to be purchased. If
the company is purchased, the buyer may be liable instead.
Of course the GPL is viral. There should be no question of this, but the question one should ask is "Is that a bad thing?". This was Stallman's goal. He wanted to screw up the software business model, which he succeeded in doing, but with the vary positive side effect of cuilding a cooperative culture of open software development with a fully functional service based business model behind it.
.NET Studio EULA. It speaks for itself.
Clearly the GPL has benefitted many people and businesses. The fact that Microsoft isn't collectively smart enough to figure out a business model that will allow them to benefit from it isn't anyone's problem than theirs, and certainly doesn't make the GPL a bad thing.
The GPL established a structure where developers can leverage the vast amounts of work released by others for the relitively cheap buy-in of licensing the nw derivative code using the same license. This is not an unreasonable obligation by any streach of the imagination. As for it being viral, if you don't agree to the terms of the license, you are free to avoid building your work on top of code licensed in this way. In the case of SCO, of they were so neglegent as to fail to observer the license constraints they were adopting, through contributing to GPL-licensed software, this is their own fault. This does not in any way reflect poorly on the license. It is written in plain language, and the text of the license represents possibly the most widely distributed and available legal contract in history.
The nature of the GPL supports a specific development and business model which is inconsistant with certain other models. If Microsoft, SCO and others wish to benefit from software developed under this model, they must accept the simple and streight-forward license terms.
For an entertaining afternoon, print out and compare the GPL to the Microsoft
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
In order to support his family, the electrician needs to wire light switches all day, every day. Electricians don't wire one switch and live off it forever for the virtue that the switch has provided a solution to a problem. However, management at companies like SCO don't realize that software is the same way. At SCO, they made some breakthrough 20 years ago and think that they need to continue getting paid for it forever. I'm sorry to say this, SCO, but like the electrician, you need to continuously make breakthroughs, you need to continuously make new solutions... you have to stay ahead of everyone else through continuously improving good management, continuously improving good project planning, continuously improving good software... continuously improving EVERYTHING. You can't write some "hello world" 20 years ago and charge every Linux user 200 bucks "royalty" for it now. It's yesteryear's news. It's stale. Nobody cares. And quite frankly, your code probably sucks anyway and will be replaced faster than shit going through a tin horn. Try firing your stupid management and putting people in place who will encourage new ideas and new development, and harbor success through good products and good marketing, instead of trying to weasel a profit through litigation, whining like a bunch of babies and making your company look pretty damn stupid. Hell, you people should quit your jobs at SCO and go work for Microsoft. At least over there your actions will fit in better with the mission statement.
What do I have to say about the "viral" GPL? Like any other action that you can make in life, you have to think before you act and you have to be responsible for your actions. At SCO, "Gentlemen, you fucked up." And now you and your all-Godly shareholders will suffer the consequences of those actions... NOT THE LINUX COMMUNITY.
It's a set back, and a minor one at that. The code they have (what they didn't give away when they released their distro and what hasn't had the patent expire on it) will be pulled from Linux, rewritten to be patent free, and we'll all move on. The point is this doesn't effect the spirit and ideals of free software at all. Neither does SCO have a patent on computing as a whole.
On the other had this might kill Redhat/SuSe/Mandrake. Yes, that would be bad. But unlike the traditional software world where a company dying means their product goes by-by, we've got the source. Heck, the core members of Redhat/SuSe/Mandrake could probably just start up another company doing the same thing. Again a set back, but not the end.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But then the focus switches to Linux, how it could have inside "stolen" code, and how everyone could be violating their IP... and there the things are more darker for SCO. Either the offending code could be replaced, or they validated the code addition releasing that code with the GPL license, or they are plain wrong. In any case, I hope the bribe they got to do all of this is enough to live the rest of their lives because no one will buy something from them ever again
I posted this same idea 2 weeks ago!
So, now can I sue him for stealing my IP? ;-)
Sure you do. If you don't tell the other party then it will not be admitted as evidence. Second as pointed out multiple times, You have a DUTY to mitigate damages. By not publishing the alledgedly offending portion, coupled with the fact the code is out in the open, prevents them from collecting damages from anybody but possible IBM.
Help fight continental drift.
A "non-disclosure agreement" is a contract and the terms of the contract determine what can and cannot be disclosed by one (or both) of the parties. I haven't seen the terms of the SCO non-disclosure agreement but whether or not it requires you to pay them regardless of your ability to reduce your liability by removing or re-writing the code would depend upon how the agreement is written. It seems to me, and IAMAL, that SCO's claims to be "damaged" is reduced if SCO refuses to let anyone know what the damage is, let alone fix it.
Let's take an injury claim. If you help me paint my house and fall off the ladder and get hurt, then I am probably responsible. However, if you won't let me know what injuries you incurred then I cannot repair the damage. If you then take me to court and demand punitive damages to teach me a lesson for not fixing you, I can claim that you never gave me the chance to help.
If you make me sign a non-disclosure agreement that stipulates that I must pay you regardless of whether I could easily remedy the damage, then that seems pretty unfair too. In the case of our painting injury, you could show me that your arm was broken but then claim (with supporting "expert" testimony, that only a heart replacement would truly fix you up and by signing the non-disclosure I would be obligated to pay for that. Nevermind that an emergency room doc could set the arm and cast it and you'd be fine in six weeks.
Any company that would sign such a non-disclosure agreement (if it were couched in the terms you describe) would deserve what it gets.
It seems to me that just the act of refusing to allow anyone to see the infringing material casts SCO in the light of trying to maximize damage to their intellectual property rights. In other words, rather than allowing it to be fixed, they want to take it to court and assign a monetary amount to the "damage" and add punitive consequences.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
If I'm not mistaken both parties will be required to disclose their evidence *before* court during the discovery process. To me SCO's statements about revealing their evidence only "in a court setting" sound as clueless as they are belligerent. Perhaps SCO's backers dream at night of David Boies confronting Samuel Palmisano with a stack of greenbar paper in some Salt Lake City courtroom, badgering him with: "How do you explain these diff files?!?!?!?" If so they should cut down on the TV.
It is NOT the purpose of a trial to "discover the truth and deal with it." It is the purpose of a trial to determine whether a specific set of charges brought by the plaintiff against the defendent are true (and, if they're true, what relief the plaintiff should get for the damage he has suffered). A civil trial is not a "truth commission." It only deals with a fairly narrow set of facts. When one party to the suit knows that it has the facts on its side, it KNOWS that the other side is going to try to present those facts in a totally different light or lie in order to interpret the facts in a different way. That means that neither party wants to give away its strategy or interpretation of the facts until legally required. It would be like the general of an invading army faxing his battle plan to the army he was attacking. It would be stupid.
What happens if you're a software company that buys some closed source static libraries from another company and link them to your proprietary product and sell the result to customers and later discover the library company included a third company's proprietary code without telling you?
> The GPL seems like a nasty can of worms...
Closed-source is a nasty can of worms. You have only the vendor's word as to what is in it. If they are incompetent or crooked you can get smacked from behind at any moment.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Yes, you have to disclose evidence to the other side, but, no, you don't have to disclose it on a timetable that suits people on Slashdot. As for mitigating damages, they are fulfilling that requirement by sending notices to people telling them that some of the code in Linux is their property and that they don't have a license to use it. A plaintiff is NOT required to litigate a case in public from the moment he files it.
To answer your questions, no - I have no idea where the case stands legally, nor do I know what depositions might have been taken or what evidence has been exchanged.
And yes - you're correct, SCO's lawyers are going to want to keep things close to the vest as long as they possibly can, so that would be a good reason not to present the offending code.
My primary point was that the original poster was incorrect in saying you don't give out evidence before you get to court. My saying "they lose nothing by presenting the relevant IP" was, I'll grant you, a stretch.
For example, IBM markets linux. Of course they did not write all of the code. Now suppose a devious linux developer were to insert say, all of some propriatey IBM application into the kernel code. If IBM does not check the code line by line they wont know it when they go to release the next edition of their variant of Linux that includes this new kernel. Thus IBM would have been duped in to releasing their own proprietary code. No reasonable person would think they were bound by the GPL.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
LINDON, Utah-March 7, 2003-The SCO® Group (SCO) (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of the UNIX operating system, announced today that it has filed legal action against IBM (NYSE:IBM) in the State Court of Utah, for misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's new Linux services business.
0 32 73
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=1
What seems to be fogotten here is what the lawsuit really is about. It is not simply about UNIX code being used in the Linux kernel, as seems to be the opinion of the vocal majority here. The suit alleges that IBM committed breech of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. The alleged inclusion of UNIX source code by IBM into the Linux kernel is the EFFECT of IBM's alleged actions--it is simply EVIDENCE.
Removing the evidence does not change the fact that a crime was committed. Sure, the Linux kernel could be rewritten as needed if there is UNIX code inside, but then you need to update each and every single machine using the violating kernel and destroy all copies of the kernel that have the code incorporated in them.
Like a sign on my profesor's door says: "Binaries may die, but source code lives forever." If the code is out there, it will be out there forever.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
There is a much better article in InternetNews.com here. They bothered to interview Moglen on this very issue:"From the moment SCO distributed the Linux kernel under GPL, they licensed the use. Always. That's what our license says."
Moglen also points out FSF owns the rights to IBM's Linux distribution, not IBM: "In fact, he said, when SCO first filed its suit against IBM, he approached SCO's lawyers because it is the Free Software Foundation and not IBM which holds the copyright to the Linux distribution IBM created, Linux for S/360. IBM created the Linux distribution but released it under the GPL and signed the copyright over to the Free Software Foundation."
What court will reward that kind of behavior, not to mention their refusal to show their code so any violations can be quickly fixed? I'm a paralegal and have been covering this on my blog Groklaw , if you want more info and links all in one place.
The real lesson for corporations will be: the GPL was designed to prevent smarmy corporate behavior. Don't use it unless you agree to its terms. If anyone considers it a loss to lose businesses like SCO...
If SCO were really concerned about losing IP, they could have discreetly contacted the parties in question, demonstrated their case, and maybe worked out some kind of licensing agreement.
My recollection is that their original claim was that they did contact IBM first, and after looking at the claims IBM told them to go fuck themselves.
However, it's hard to tell what the SCO management is thinking, because they've changed their story so many times that it's really looking more and more like a shakedown - but at the same time, it'd be even worse for Linux if their bullshit turns out to be true. They started out by going after IBM, and making those stupid bicycle/car comparisons; next they threatened other Linux vendors, claiming that parts of SCO's IP were in other pieces of the OS besides the kernel; then they claimed that the Linux kernel itself has SCO's source code, and now they even claim that this was the case before IBM started doing Linux development. I don't think this has helped their case much.
SCO's original complaint was actually sort of vague; now that they've moved on to claiming that specific bits of code have been lifted by non-IBM developers, they just sound incompetent for letting this go on for so long while they continued to distribute Linux. In the worst case, if the claims hold up, they're a bunch of incompetent morons. Either way, they've now backed themselves up against a wall - this leaves them wide open to a countersuit if they can't back up their words.
A blanket statement like that has no legal value, as it does not allow for the alledged offender to take any specific actions.
If they want anyone to stop using Linux they need an injunction, and in asking for that they need to be specific.
The judge will not grant this as they clearly have shown that the potential damage in granting this is much higher than not doing. There is no irreparable damages since they were years late in doing this.
Second if the judge grants it, they will most likely be asked to post a bond, much higher than they can afford.
Thirdly: If they are not already dead-meat, They surely will be when the suits for damages starts rolling in.
Help fight continental drift.
If they did release their code as GPL, it was their choice.
Ummm.... lets see now....
1. Caldera releases a distribution of Linux.
2. Caldera buys SCO.
3. Caldera now has access to the source for both OSs.
4. After a few months comparing the code, they find some that matches.
5. As soon as they find them, they drop their Linux product, and launch a lawsuit.
Given that set of circumstances, I can't see how they made a choice to release the code.
Of course, there is still an argument to be had as to whether that really was the sequence of events, or whether there really is any of their code in Linux, but I don't think there's any scenario where they actually chose to release their code: if the above sequence is right, they did everything possible to limit the damage once they found out, and if it isn't correct, then they probably haven't got a case.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the understanding they had entered a motion to have the case sealed..
While its true they will have to release evidence in court to the other party as part of due process, ( though I originally thought that only applied to criminal cases, not civil, but ill take everyone's word for it that I'm wrong ) they don't have to release to US.. and if its sealed, they CANT...
and I still say that would hurt their case.. ( even if they are nuts )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
SCO has some steep hurdles to overcome still. There must first be a legal finding of fact showing that Linux does contain proprietary UNIX code.
Next, there must be a finding of fact showing that said code was introduced into Linux without authorization from the then copyright holders; or that withstanding; said code was introduced after SCO became the legal copyright owner and without SCO's authorization.
Finally, if SCO's case can survive those two steps, SCO would need to quash any claim that it released its proprietary code to the GPL when it knowingly produced and distributed its own Linux product. On the surface, it will immediately appear that this is what SCO did. To defeat such a claim, SCO will need to show that it did not know and had no reason to know that Linux contained proprietary code owned by SCO or anyone else.
This will be an unconvincing argument however, since by having access to the full Linux sourcecode, SCO had legal notice.
An interesting final twist. If all these findings of fact are met, the case can proceed; and if SCO wins, SCO will immediately make itself liable for copyright violations if Linux contains any proprietary code owned by another party. Poetic justice...
Corel's situation worsened to the point where it was forced to suffer the humiliation of accepting bailout money from Microsoft (a direct competitor). Why? Because it sunk so many resources into Linux... and then could not get a positive return on its investment due to the GPL. Corel competes with Microsoft in many, many markets -- to accept money from Gates was the ultimate capitulation. It only took Microsoft's blood money because it would have failed completely if it did not.
Corel's embrace of Linux was a key factor in the company's decline. It couldn't differentiate Linux itself from competitors' offerings due to the GPL, which required it to give its work away. So, it floundered. Had it based a product on NetBSD, OpenBSD (which would have been a great choice since it's also Canadian), or FreeBSD, it would have done much better.
Just because (and if) there is common code between Linux and SCO UNIX doesn't mean that the Linux camp 'borrowed' the code. It could have just as easily been the other way around. In fact, given the public nature of Linux code and the hidden nature of SCO's, that is more likely to be what happened.
I figured out that Microsoft won't buy SCO for the UNIX license. At first, it seems that it might be good idea, especially if all of the UNIX flavors would have to pay license fees to Microsoft. It looks like SCO is EITHER trying to get bought OR trying to assert their IP rights. Is it possible they are doing both?
Is it possible that 1)SCO is right about IP rights concerning Linux AND 2)SCO will continue to collect on UNIX licenses AND 3)If they sell out, that whoever buys them will benefit from UNIX and Linux IP rights?
Microsoft Windows was sort of designed from the ground up; it does not have as rich of a history as UNIX - Microsoft feels strongly (or at least they claim) that their OS's are superior to UNIX.
The AT&T v Berkeley case stands as a precedent; and no one is going to feel sorry (poor baby) about Microsoft when similar challenges occur. Given those facts, it seems very likely to me that Microsoft will not buy SCO. If Microsoft buys SCO, it might end up making things harder for itself in the long run. Besides, if SCO does have a case, Linux should be able to break free by changing the code (if that's the case).
I have a feeling that IBM will prevail. Maybe IBM should consider buying the UNIX rights from SCO, but not the company? That would be interesting.
But here's the catch: Does this validate Microsoft's view of a "viral GPL"?"
We've been through this before, it's a vaccine, not a virus.
It keeps companies from mixing in their proprietary bits then claiming a proprietary interest in the whole work just because they contributed a piece.
This was no accident; SCO deliberately distributed their code under the GPL. They didn't contract the GPL like a virus, they deliberately and knowingly ingested it like a pill. Now they're whining because they weren't good enough to compete so they're delaying their imminent demise through the court system.
If the GPL does indeed stop SCO from pursuing this course of action, it won't prove Microsoft's point. Rather, it will prove that the GPL is doing exactly what it was intended to: embrace? sure. extend? great! extinguish? GO FUCK YOURSELF.
If
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Yep - MS does not give a blanket redistribution licence for windows libraries - and therefore you are NOT ALLOWED to redistribute them. Moreover recent versions of windows will actively prevent system libraries being installed by applications - (only allowed by OS service pack / hotfix installs).
MS does give redistribution licence for a lot of stuff - but not everything, eg. not that long ago if your app used features of the new comctl32.dll the only way to legally ship it was to ship IE (which installed it), as comctl32.dll was not redistributable any other way. Yes you could pull the dll out of system32 and put it in your install, yes it (sometimes) worked, but it was NOT legal to ship.
Note that NONE of this gives MS any rights over your code by the act of linking to theirs - they only have rights over their code. The SAME applies to the GPL - the readline authors don't have any rights over your code just becuase you link to it. HOWEVER, in either case IF you want to distribute someone elses code, THEN you have to follow terms agreed with them.
Also, if you link to two libraries with conflicting terms (like eg. MS saying you may not ship source code, and GPL saying you must) then you can't legally ship. That applies to any two licences - GPL or not is irrelevant - if they conflict they conflict.
NB: all the above is assuming distributing a statically-linked executable, which clearly constitutes distributing the linked components.
Once we get into dynamic linking, or indeed the GPL's system libraries exception, then it gets a whole lot more complicated - and in fact I also think that the FSF position in those areas doesn't hold up. The GPL was written for static linked (all there was then) C programs on early commercial unix, and in that context it works ok - start trying to stretch it over the full range of current development languages/environments etc. and it quickly looks pretty thin IMO. GPL v3 is supposed to address all this - and funnily enough it seems to be taking them an awfully long time to write...
First off, SCO has footbulleted their IP seventeen different ways from sunday. This is just a rehash of the BSD legal baggage and it won't avail SCO anything against the likes of IBM. Two, they're claiming damages without revealing where in the gigs of code that make up a Linux distro where the problem is. Three, they picked on IBM which as someone else pointed out is like starting a fistfight with a train. Fourth, they've distributed this code themselves for YEARS; they just found out about this now. Fifth, what calls itself SCO was a Linux company that bought the old SCO IP from what now calls itself Tarantella....this does not look good. Sixth, Micorsoft is barred by past legal actions from touching that very codebase. There was a very loud legal debacle from their Xenix days. SCO's IP basically started out as Xenix.
SCO's baggage can easily hurt MS as much as it can help it. Such a move would be blatantly anticompetitive and they can still get in hot water for such things in Europe. SCO is like a plague ship at this point. I don't see MS getting anywhere near it. Some have surmised that MS is behind SCO's current frothing at the mouth. I don't think they're that dumb. The fallout if/when they're caught would be spectacular.
I figured out that Microsoft won't buy SCO for the UNIX license. At first, it seems that it might be good idea, especially if all of the UNIX flavors would have to pay license fees to Microsoft.
You're missing one significant possibility, though. Depending on the severity of the infringement (a big unknown), MS could buy SCO and use it against the Linux/Unix world. If they hold the license, they can refuse to grant licenses to anyone, making it illegal to sell Unix.
Of course, this would be a blatant violation of antitrust law but, at least under the Bush administration, that isn't something they're worried about.
Speaking of which, everyone running any version of Microsoft Windows can send me US$99 and I won't sue you if I ever decide to sue everyone because they uh, might have some infringing code, yeah, that's the ticket.
BTW, in a worst case scenario I wonder how practical it would be for an end user to quit using the Linux kernel and insert the FreeBSD kernel with the Linux environment add-ins until the alleged "infringing code" would be removed.
Maybe, but what kind of lame-ass company counsel would advise his client to pay off on a copyright infringement claim where: 1) the claimed infringed matter is unknown; 2) no known certificate of copyright registration has been issued with respect to the claimed infinrged matter; 3) no copyright is claimed in the claimed infringed matter in any pending litigation, and; 4) the claimed infringed matter was, at least on its face, distributed under the GPL? Any company who pays on such a claim deserves to go belly up and any lawyer who advises same should be shot twice (obligatory bullet plus one).
Weren't they the ones that offered UNIX licenses for US$99 to Linux users after first making the claim? I think they did try to 'work out some kind of licensing', but they didn't offer any proof of why end users should do it.
the inquirer article You have to take the inquirere with a grain of salt but it says:
"The libraries, which perform basic operations such as opening files, are currently licensed for use with with SCO's OpenServer and UnixWare Unix variants, but not with the UnitedLinux distribution that the company sells.
If the libraries are used in conjunction with a program called Linux-ABI, they make migration easier for companies moving from Unix to Linux and so it is believed that SCO is keen to make such customers pay for the privilege.
The SCO Group refused to confirm or deny the move"
The GPL did not harm SCO. SCO management took a gamble that it could compete. It turns out that it couldn't. That's just business; it happens every day. The GPL doesn't enter into it.
.... well, you figure it out!
As you allude, the GPL is not designed to make lots of money for the licensors. This is not a bad thing, and I'm not sure why you are so offended by this fact. If you want to make money and can make a product that can allow you or your employer to do so, go for it. If not, stop. There's no use crying because all the bad people that freely volunteer their time and energy to making software for it's own sake and for that of their peers do a good enough job to make your product irrelevant. You do not have the right to make a profit, only the right to try.
In terms of history being littered with failed companies that "attempted to deal in GPLed software", well, duh!
1. Any business niche is littered with corporate corpses. You think Linux is bad? Try opening a restaraunt!
2. If you want to succeed in business, try selling something at a price that people will pay. Let's see, do I:
A) Pay big money to tie myself to a company whose core value is to take as much of my money as it can
B) Download some software for free and hire people (who I can replace if they suck) to help me when I can't figure it out for myself?
If you there aren't enough people willing to do A