Slashdot Mirror
Linux vs. SCO: The Decision Matrix
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."
I am distressed that most of the anti-SCO argument seems to be based on the fact that SCO continued to publish Linux after claiming infringement.
David Boies is a smart man, and surely he or his legal team would have thought of this. They must have some sort of legitimate defense up their sleeve. Maybe a direct attack on the legitimacy of the GPL?
I think it will run something like this: Linux is important to SCO's business. Even though they discovered violations in linux, they had to continue to release linux or suffer grave damage to their business. They should not be made to suffer for the malicious actions of IBM, and they did not voluntarily release their own source code, so the GPL should not apply to their proprietary code that somehow found its way into linux.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
- If SCO doesn't own the copyrights that it claims --> Lawsuit fails
- If there isn't any infringing code in Linux --> Lawsuit fails
- If SCO can't prove that IBM put the code there --> Lawsuit fails
- If SCO can't convince a court that they were duped into distributing the infringing code under the GPL in their own Linux distribution --> Lawsuit fails
- If SCO can't convince a court that there should be monitary damages --> Lawsuit fails
So what if there is infringing SCO code in Linux and SCO manages to play the duped victim with their own distribution under GPL?First, he claims that Linux is fine becuase SCO indemnified users. No, only customers of SCO linux. There's a big difference there.
Then, he claims that Linux is OK because it only affects IBM from a breach-of-contract standpoint. Yeah, except for it establishing a finding of fact that can be used in later suits against linux users/distros.
Finally, he makes the old, tired argument that the GPL saves us. That's all well and good except that the GPL, being a bit of a non-standard contract, has never been tested in court.
A great deal of what they wrote is either false or misinterpreted. Like the article in Forbes (I think) last month said, the linux community is NOT served by sticking its collective head in the sand and expecting IBM and the GPL to come riding in on their respective white horses to save us. There are real risks here - granted, some of them are farfetched, but stranger things have happened.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Perhaps someone could release a "spin-free" version of this document and then let readers draw their own conclusions. I imagine that a few of the conclusions would correlate with this matrix.
This matrix seems like a shot at SCO's attempt to win this case in public as opposed to in court. We all know that this is going to take quite some time to muddle through the court system. We also all know that the courts will have the final decision in this matter.
I have several friends at various Linux vendors who claim that sales are down and that customers have mentioned the suit very often as a reason to hold off on adoption of open source software. The BSA is lobbying foreign governments to avoid open source because of this case, even as we speak. We may be able to fix a few lines of snarfed code in 15 minutes and end the whole ordeal, but Linux may never get its credibility back if contributors can be shown to have caused the problem.
And finally, we come to the root cause of the suit. No, there's no any infringing code. There never has been, and there never will be. But now that SCO's made the accusation, it will be impossible to dispose of. Whenever someone mentions Linux, the "but didn't they steal code from Unix?" question will pop up. Whenever a Microsoft sales rep is talking to a PHB, and the PHB mentions "open source", or "Linux", or even (yes, even) "BSD", the sales rep will be able to say "Ah, but what about that stolen code?" And as the MPAA, RIAA, and BSA have proven so well, stolen's a little red-flag word. No-one wants anything to do with stolen. And not only is Linux tainted, but SCO's nebulous assertions about "Unix" and "SysV" derived works make all Unix-descended systems seem tainted. Which leaves guess who as the sole survivor?
SCO has no proof. IF this suit ever gets to court, and doesn't just vanish into the mist, they'll get smacked down so hard by IBM that they won't know what hit them. But that possibility will always be out there. After all, Linus cannot check every submission to make sure it wasn't "stolen" from some piece of proprietary software. Its impossible. Neither, however, can Microsoft check to make sure that one of their coders didn't "steal" code from proprietary software, or even a GPL'd program. Its a red herring, designed to make Linux look tainted and criminal for a problem that's common to ALL software.
I think everyone's first thought was right - SCO is looking to get bought out. But not by IBM - by Microsoft. The executives and top investors know they're on a sinking ship, and are currying favour with MS to try and get on what they see as more sure footing. And making a bundle off their investments while they're at it, by inflating their stock price and selling during the high.
I sincerely hope these suckers get smacked down hard by an FTA investigation, and whoever's backing them gets nailed with criminal charges.
IBM is going make sure to drag this out and make it as expensive for SCO as possible. By the time any decisions will have been rendered by a judge, it will likely be irrelevant.
Here, here.
In all likelyhood, IBM will drag it out until SCO is dead. It's the only sensible response.
If SCO wanted to save face, and perhaps live on, they'd do better to turn 180 degrees and contribute to Linux. They could actually make a market for an SCO Linux distro and port their proprietary applications to run on their Linux distro and keep licensing the apps the way they always have.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
For SCO to prevail it will have to establish that it owned the code, and that it was included in Linux distributions with malice and/or a callous disregard for the property rights of the code's true owners, but that SCO's "accidental" release of the same code under the GPL was not deliberate and shouldn't be held against it.
It seems to me that SCO was in a far better position to recognize that the code being distributed as part of Caldera was in fact part of SCO's property than it was for other Linux distributors who did not have access to that confidential code.
In August 2000, just days after Caldera purchased the Old SCO server division, the then CEO of Caldera, Ransom Love, made a keynote speech at LinuxWorld 2000. A RealPlayer video stream of the event can be found at DrDobbs Journal's Technetcast
In the question and answer session at the end of the keynote, Love was asked about the possible conflict over Monterey and Linux AI-64
A mp3 capture of the following transcribed portion
SCO has NO effective case against either IBM, HP or anyone else.
Sounds more like a company that is grasping at straws on the side of the river bank as they are drowning. The 'license fee' that MS recently paid them amounts to throwing them a string that will only be helpful if someone else decides to tie a rope onto the string. My guess is that their only hope is for a judge to make IBM tie on that rope.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
"obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim."
3
-- Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group. August 2002
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=629
Check out the 8th paragraph.
----
BTW: scox stock price has surged over the few sessions, and insiders are selling like mad. I think insiders just filed to sell 300K shares after the market closed.