Today's SCO News

joebeone writes "Linus has commented on the SCO v. IBM suit saying "SCO is playing it like the Raelians" and that he will withhold his judgement until the code in question is shown in court. He has also recommended that former slashdot editor, Chris DiBona, be appointed to a panel offered by SCO to examine the evidence." Businessweek has an interview with SCO's CEO. The Open Group would like to remind everyone that SCO is only one of many in the Unix world.

Comments

Does it...

[frodo from middle ea]

Does it occur to any one , that the result of this problem is not of much importance.
Think about it, Microsoft has been spreading the FUD that GPL is THE big problem in enterprise environments not open source.
With all the bad publicity this is generating for linux, even if SCO were to loose its case in court, the Damage has already been done

Do managers really care whether linux code has or has not infringed upon copyright code? Do they ?

All they will see is that, GPLed code could potentially land them in problem.

This has a two fold implications on a IT manager thinking of deploying linux

• One:- As long as the case is not resolved, using Linux could mean risking being sued for copyright infringments. Also what's to gurantee that no other company could sue in future.
• Secondly mixing GPLed code, or even using the GPLed libraries with their own propritory code is now a NO-NO

This has been probably the most successful attack policy of Microsoft. Shoot from the shoulders of SCO and scare the IT managers.

Remember programmers like you and me, don't matter as long as IT managers are scared to use linux in their enterprise.

Scaring OSS consumers

[wine]

In the business week article Darl McBride tries to scare (potential) OSS consumers:

I believe the way the open-source community works right now has some fundamental flaws that have got to be addressed. We need to address how this open-source intellectual property is developed, routed, and sold. Thousands of software developers send code to contribute to open-source projects -- but there isn't a protective device for the customer using the software to ensure they're not in violation of the law by using stolen code.

This might be true, IANAL. But this is no different for proprieraty, closed source code. For open and closed source alike, you cannot trace if code has illegaly been copied into it from another source. So, even if you buy a proprietary closed source application, you might as well be in violation of the law.

This is the real concern

[AppHack]

I was at a meeting yesterday with 60 or so Security and IT leaders from around our city. One of the items being discussed was the use of OSS. The general consensus of the non-techie leaders was that they would steer away from OSS when things like SCO were going on. The more technical leaders were trying to explain some of the issues, but that largely fell on deaf ears.

This entire issue has nothing to do with the code. It doesn't matter when SCO release the "offending" code or if the code is really an IP infraction or not. Most people's understanding of this will simply be a headline here and there. The idea that you might get sued for using Linux will be all they remember. If the courts determine there is some basis to this, it will get even worse. Those things take a long time for the general population to forget.

Re:SCO's Ineffable Fallacy

[spitzak]

Revealing the code would not remove the fact that copyright infringment has been done already, and they could still collect exactly as much damages as before.

There are only two reasons for them not to reveal the code:

1. There is no such code

2. The code is in some laughably insignificant or obsolete part of Linux, which would backfire on them because everybody would then say that SCO's code is obsolete and this proves that Linux has far surpassed them.

Some people say there is a conspiracy and Microsoft is paying SCO to cast fear and doubt on Linux, and that this doubt is more valuable to them than winning the case. But this still does not explain why they don't reveal any of the code. If there was any code of value, it would likely be in several pieces. They could reveal one piece so that everybody knows they are serious and they can prove they have a case, and say "there are several others that we will reveal later". This would be far more damaging to Linux than their current actions and would make Microsoft happy. Therefore I feel pretty confident now that they have no case whatsoever.

Re: SCO's Ineffable Fallacy

[Black Parrot]

> Some people say there is a conspiracy and Microsoft is paying SCO to cast fear and doubt on Linux, and that this doubt is more valuable to them than winning the case. But this still does not explain why they don't reveal any of the code.

My take on that yesterday:

That's also why I believe that this is an anti-Linux FUD campaign. If they were really concerned with IP then they have nothing to gain by keeping the code secret. If they announce it now it will get removed now (which is what they want, right?) but they'll still be entitled to any legal remedy they'd be entitled to without announcing it (assuming any at all). There's simply no IP-based reason not to announce it.

But as for FUD-based reasons, well, it's only FUDworthy so long as everything is up in the air and businesses thinking about making the switch have something to worry about. Point to the code and the argument switches to the facts of the claim, or the code gets ripped out, and the FUD-bubble bursts overnight.

The IP motivation says "announce it", and the FUD motivations says "mum's the word".

No, this isn't about IP.

So lets see

[91degrees]

IBM misappropriated SCO's code, which was then incorporated into the Linux kernel released by Caldera, making Caldera liable. SCO then bought Caldera, thus implying that SCO had been misled into buying a license to their own code. SCO fails to realise this and releases Linux as per the GPL.

Okay. That bit makes sense. SCO then realise that some of their code is amisapprpriated. They contuinue to distribute it under the GPL even though they claim the GPL doesn't cover it. They also claim that some of SCO's code is in the Linux kernel, but fail to say what. All this time they continue to distibute their own code under a license which states that either they are not allowed to, or that they must allow others to do exactly what they're claiming everyone else shouldn't do.

SCO make some statement that says that it isn't being distributed under the GPL, and the GPL says so, disregarding the fact that says that if they distribute GPLed code they give a license to use all the code that's included.

This is where I sart getting a headache. I just can't make the facts of that last sentence sound coherent however hard I try.