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."

Comments

Look, they're not stupid.

[s20451]

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.

Chance of SCO success?

[DeadSea]

For SCO to get anywhere on this lawsuit:

1. If SCO doesn't own the copyrights that it claims --> Lawsuit fails
2. If there isn't any infringing code in Linux --> Lawsuit fails
3. If SCO can't prove that IBM put the code there --> Lawsuit fails
4. 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
5. 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?

1. Linux developers replace the code and release a new version. Any infringing sections are rumored to be in the tens (not hundreds or more) lines. This should happen very quickly.
2. Linux users upgrade to the newest version and would no longer be in violation
3. SCO could try to sue more people for past offenses, for which they would likely be awarded very little as the infringement is so small and users were not aware of the infringements (even after the lawsuit was announced as SCO isn't telling what infringes).

Sticking their heads in the sand

[siskbc]

A lot of what they say is complete bullshit. I would love to see Linux come out of this stronger than ever, I really would, but this guy's way off the mark on a lot of things.

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.

Re:Sticking their heads in the sand

[Trailer Trash]

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.

I cringe every time I see this point being made. The GPL isn't relevant, really. If the GPL doesn't "stand up in court", then no problem, standard copyright law takes over. SCO has no other right to distribute the Linux kernel under copyright law beyond those given by the copyright holder.

What this means practically speaking is that if SCO violated the GPL, and the GPL is declared invalid, then SCO has instead violated standard copyright law. The statutory damages are $150,000 per incident. Everytime someone downloads the Linux kernel source from their website, ka-ching. Every sale that they've made, ka-ching. Pissing off Richard Stallman suddenly sounds like the better way off, eh?

The bottom line is that SCO continues to distribute the Linux source code. As such, they're either agreeing to distribute it under the terms of the GNU GPL (which don't allow extra burdens to be placed on the code) or they are directly violating copyrights. They are far better off if they get off with a simple GPL violation; $150K/download adds up quickly.

Re:Preaching to the quire

[RickHunter]

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.

Catch-22 in SCO argument

[cait56]

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.

Ransom Love's Linuxworld 2000 Keynote Speech

[NZheretic]

The SCO group, and both Old SCO and Caldera before it, directly acknowledged and assisted IBM with the scalablity of Linux

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

Q: What happens about Project Monterey, because that conflicts with the IA-64 Linux, 64-bit Linux?

Love: OK. I don't -- if we do our job right in making Linux scale over like UnixWare to the degree that everybody, that we know we can... May I ask, some people have said, "Well, people have tried this in the past, but they haven't been that successful," may I suggest: we don't have any ulterior motives for not making it successful. Technologically has not been the reason why it hasn't done it before. There's always some other motive, right? And so to talk about Monterey, clearly we want to make sure we have the same level of Linux integration on Monterey that we would have in our Unixware product. Now, we don't control, I mean, we have a great relationship... it's a joint development relationship with IBM which we intend to preserve ... but they have similar interests and so this is really a very synergistic, uh, this transaction is great for all of the major partners as they have already wanted to embrace Linux moving forward.

Now, let me address one other aspect of your question, which is that the Monterey Project is in conflict with the IA-64 Linux Project. I don't believe it's in conflict at all. Now, clearly, we have tremendous vested interest in the IA-64 Linux Project and with the acquisition of SCO, they've been doing a lot, so you combine those, and we've got one of the more comprehensive offerings, I believe, on the IA-64 Linux. So that's clearly an area that we're very committed to. But like Unixware, there's elements of the Monterey kernel that are more scalable, OK? Now, on the IA-64 platform, I don't know how long of window that is, but today, it's a little bit more robust and more scalable than the IA-64 Linux is today. Now, I'm not saying that over time that won't change.

But, and let me address one other thing. Sorry, (laughs) you're getting all of it through one question. But clearly we are going to add components back to the Linux kernel on both IA-32 and IA-64 platforms. We'll work with Linus and everyone in order to make that available. That will take some time. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't know that over time you can have a single kernel -- in fact I know you can't -- that will scale, you know, the breadth of IT technology needs. So I think we're looking, in the Linux community, at having multiple kernels, so...

Q: Multiple Linux kernels? Or multiple UNIX kernels?

Love: Multiple Linux kernels as well, over time.

Q: Thank you.

Love: You bet.

SCO has NO effective case against either IBM, HP or anyone else.

interesting quote

[walterbyrd]

"obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim."

-- Darl McBride, CEO, The SCO Group. August 2002

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6293

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.