Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Linux vs. SCO: The Decision Matrix

Posted by michael on from the drawing-conclusions dept.

hexidec writes "Haven't seen this here yet, though I may have missed it. Anyway... A group of Australian techies have put together an analysis matrix of the likelyhood of each SCO Unix claim being true, and what outcome would most likely result if so. Puts a lot of the various recent suppositions in one handy place."

7 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. Anothr example of... by cruppel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...blind speculation, I think.

    Those ratings at the top indicating the likelihood of these allegations (or whatever you want to call them) don't really mean anything. They're just speculation and opinion, much like the 17,000 /. comments dealing with this whole deal. It reads nice and legal-sounding, but to me it looks like a table formatted thread straight off this site.

  2. You just need to look at the last line... by greppling · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...to see what a biased analysis this is. "Linux unaffected" with 100% certainty? Come on, we all have seen things go horribly wrong in courts. And have seen impact of pure FUD with no basis whatsoever.

    Yeah, I know I will get modded down for just suggesting that SCO's action might have some effect, but well...

  3. Re:Mirror for the slashdot effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You will notice that the purported decision matrix (implying a logical document with conclusions deduced by scientifc logic from given hypotheses) says at the bottom of all possible outcomes 'linux is unaffected'.

    In case you hadn't guessed, this is far from the logical document the name suggests, but really a portrayal of one person's viepoint. The conclusion, namely that linux is unaffected in all cases is clearly false, as I can think, regardless of my own *opinions* of what chance such an event is said to have, that a judge *could* decide linux was infringing, and that it would be illegal to use it without paying Sco royalties.

    There are many pro-Linux assumptions such as that Sco opened the source by distribution Caldera made any putative copyright violation legal since they were doing it themselves. This is an assumption you cannot make without a legal decision.

    This document adds nothing to the debate - the only thing that will is a decision in a year or so's time in court, and in the mean time Sco can frighten people into not using Linux

  4. That would be the worst thing for Linux by GoofyBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Meeting:

    Tech guy 1: Lets implement Linux, its free and robust.
    Tech guy 2: Lets go with Windows, it costs more but there is that lawsuit which if SCO wins we might have to pay some undefined charges.
    Boss: What lawsuit?
    Tech guy 1: <goes on about how its fruitless and how SCO is the devil and blah blah blah repeating every Insightful post he's read on slashdot>
    Boss: So Linux might or might not be infringing on someones code and we might be opening the company to legal action?
    Tech guy 1: Yes but its just games that SCO...
    Boss: Which version of Windows should we get?

    So the longer this lawsuit goes on, the more decisions like this will have to be made.

    --
    The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    1. Re:That would be the worst thing for Linux by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 5, Insightful


      My linux servers (which were soon going into production) are being formated with W2K as we speak.

      Sucks to be you. MY boss, already impressed with the existing production Linux servers and our development environments, has asked me how we can go about getting MORE linux in to our production environment. And I am currently hashing out an IT plan for a new system that is based on Linux (although its more like a network appliance).

      It is expected that SCO's publicity stunt is going to affect some IT managers. Especially with the implied backing of Microsoft. But I question just how much "damage" is really being done.

      To be honest, I expected my situation to be simular as the parent poster's. I am currently in a very conservative environment that has not always embraced Open Source (or more accurately, like many other organizations, it wasn't fully aware of Open Source in its midst). Seeing this conservative (and very Windows-centric) environment embracing Linux and MacOS X is rather interesting. Watching it continue this trend despite the FUD is facinating.

      Wish your boss had the same outlook as mine.
  5. Re:Mirror for the slashdot effect by Znork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're not quite correct. The GPL is actually not based on the same law that makes other software licenses valid. Most licenses for proprietary software are based on contract law, as they often attempt to restrict what you're allowed to do with the software beyond copyright limitations. This is what makes the whole "agreement" part necessary. Contract violations are rarely criminal, usually entail damages only, and are enforced in court by civil lawsuits.

    The GPL on the other hand is not entirely based on contract law; if it were, it could theoretically be challenged in court for some form of gain, and would quite possibly have been long ago. Instead, it deals entirely within the realm of allowing you to do things that you are not allowed to do within copyright law. As the GPL is the only thing granting you the right to modify and distribute the software you cannot distribute the software without adhering to the terms of the GPL (unless you obtain specific permission to do so from the copyright owner). Violating the GPL means you've violated copyright law by distributing copyrighted material without permission and that possibly means a criminal violation (depending on local law and things like wether it was done for profit), with entirely different consequences. This is one of the reasons you dont see any cases of companies challenging the GPL; few lawyers, I believe, would recommend engaging in something that may very well end up with their clients broke and in jail (and hey, wanna bet the RIAA and MPAA will try to lobby in the death penalty for copyright violations soon?).

    Due to these differences the GPL is probably more "valid" than most ordinary proprietary software licenses, and violations can carry far heavier penalties, depending on copyright law in the country where it took place.

  6. The SCO/Linux FAQ by heironymouscoward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Question: SCO has declared itself a victim of breach of contract by IBM, specifically WRT AIX. Why, then, is it attacking Linux so specifically and directly?
    Answer: the goal of this exercise is to attack Linux, nothing else.

    Question: why is IBM saying nothing?
    Answer: they believe SCO might win, and are willing to sacrifice Linux if necessary.

    Question: why is Microsoft saying nothing?
    Answer: everyone knows they hate Linux, so no-one believes their propaganda any longer. They need a fresh mouthpiece. SCO is that mouthpiece.

    Question: why is Microsoft so intent on harming Linux?
    Answer: the goals of Linux and all OSS are nothing less than the total anhilation of Microsoft. War is not a nice thing. This is not a metaphor: we are talking about the lives of people you know.

    Question: if it is war, how do we win?
    Answer: this is a good question, and timely. You win wars by avoiding the battles you cannot win and by winning those you can.

    Question: what is the ultimate goal of Microsoft?
    Answer: the closure of the "development gap", in which the right to create code still lies in the hands of the individual. Ultimately, this power must be restricted to licensed programmers only. Nothing less than that makes sense. If your think this is exageration, look at other professions, then think about the public's perception of hackers, Linux kernel hackers, and virus writers.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature